Стаття.

Kostiantyn Mizin, Jiří Korostenski

DOI 10.31558/1815-3070.2019.37.1

UDC 81’119

“Western” Cultural Linguistics and “post-Soviet” Linguoculturology:

CAUSES OF PARALLEL development

The article discusses main causes of parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistics and “post-soviet” Linguoculturology. The findings show that these reasons can be quite simple: “English speaking” Cultural Linguistics and “Russian speaking” Linguoculturology as well as a slow emergence of post-soviet science outside its area, despite the global integration of modern science. Besides, different theoretical and methodological traditions, effecting both their theoretical basis and analytical tools, make it difficult for both subjects to be in “close” connection.

Keywords: Cultural Linguistics, Linguoculturology, cultural conceptualizations, linguocultural concept, theoretical and methodological “isolation”.

1. Problem Setting. An incentive to writing this article was attempts of Russian linguists to “introduce” post-soviet recipients to the new “western” anthropological discipline – Cultural Linguistics – by translating the most significant works of foreign linguists (in this case by “western” we mean anything outside the former Soviet Union, i. e. Western European, American, Australian, etc.). To the question why these attempts have been made only recently, the answer is clear: it results from a slow but steady emergence of post-Soviet science beyond its space due to global integration of modern science which “makes” researchers publish their works in scientometric databases indexed journals.

It should be noted that these translations today are still rare, but those that exist, are of considerable confusion. For example, the Russian translation of the article by B. Peeters in the journal “Жанры речи”, which seems to be done on a rather professional level, is quite inaccurate methodologically, mainly because of only one but very important point which shows the translator’s linguistic incompetence: O. Dubrovska translated the term Cultural Linguistics as Linguo­culturology – they are two different subjects. Although objects and purposes of their study may seem to be similar, this is nothing but an apparent similarity, since they differ significantly in (1) theoretical and philosophical basis, (2) methods and (3) the area of distribution. The translation of F. Sharifian’s article by І. Lebedeva is also inaccurate where Cultural Linguistics is replaced with Culturological Linguistics, because culturology is mainly soviet “product” which has nothing in common with Cultural Linguistics.

It is obvious that there are some reasons for giving Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology statuses of “western” and “post-soviet”, the type of Anthropological Linguistics which mainly aims at studying the triad “man (consciousness) – language – culture”. One of the reasons is the fact that the «godfathers» of these subjects – F. Sharifian and V. Vorob’jov – laid in their theoretical and methodological foundations a common epistemological idea – the study of the phenomenon of man, his inner world (vs. consciousness) based on the latter’s language and culture (see: Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language”; Vorob’jov). It is strange enough that even under the current globalization processes the two powerful scientific disciplines, that emerged almost simultaneously in different parts of the world and have a common goal of research, can be developing in isolation from one another.

We should note that the term Cultural Linguistics is not new, because it first emerged more than twenty years ago in the monograph by J. Anusiewicz. However, J. Anusiewicz’s ideas, and here we fully agree with B. Peeters, did not become popular neither in “western” – mostly English speaking – nor in post-soviet – mostly Russian speaking – Linguistics, because the monograph was written in Polish. That is why linguists tend to believe that the primacy in the use of the term Cultural Linguistics belongs to G. Palmer.

Cultural Linguistics was formed on the basis of the ideas of the American ethno-linguistic school (F. Boas, E. Sapir, B. Whorf et al.), where at one time was born lingual relativity hypothesis by Sapir–Whorf, which, since the mid 20th century and to this day, causes heated debate not only in the field of Linguistics but also in related sciences (Philosophy, Psychology etc.). In the late 20th century these ideas fell on the fertile Australian soil, previously watered by the concept of universal semantic primitives (natural semantic metalanguage) by A. Wierzbicka. These days there are methodological tools of Cultural Linguistics, tested on the materials of many languages (see: Advances in Cultural Linguistics).

At the same time (at the end of the twentieth century) a new human-oriented branch of science known as linguocultural studies emerged (very much like a supernova) within the field of post-soviet Linguistics as the ideas introduced by V. Vorob’jov (Vorob’jov) were instantly shared by a number of famous Russian scholars: М. Alefirenko, О. Babaieva, V. Karasik, О. Khrolenkо, М. Кovshova, V. Кrasnykh, І. Оlshanskyi, V. Тeliia, H. Тоkariov, S. Vorkachjov etc. In Ukraine and Belarus, and later in Kazakhstan these ideas were also presented in a number of doctoral papers, monographs and textbooks (see: Alimzhanova; Zahnitko, Sakharuk; Levchenko; Maslova; Mizin, “Ustaleni porivnyannya anhliys’koyi, nimets’koyi, ukrayins’koyi ta rosiys’koyi mov v aspekti zistavnoyi linhvokul’turolohiyi”).

Despite linguoculturological “boom”, Linguoculturology is still being developed because the problem of its methodology is still incomplete (see: Mizin, “Lіngvokul’turnij Koncept “Kapcі”, abo shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji” 23–24). The fact that Linguoculturology is considered to be an indigenous Russian science, and linguoculturological works are mostly printed in little-known journals and collections of works in Russian or less often in Ukrainian and Belarusian, did not contribute to its spread beyond the post-soviet linguistic space. The only exceptions are countries that border this space – Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria. But it should be noted that linguoculturological ideas are not popular here. There is nothing much to say about “Western” Linguistics where English dominates and foreign linguists often do not speak Russian. This resulted in the fact that Linguoculturology and Cultural Linguistics are developing in parallel but “separated worlds”. Therefore, it is no wonder that F. Sharifian and his followers do not even mention Linguoculturology in their works. It is noteworthy that this isolation has played a cruel joke with Cultural Linguistics which remains practically unknown to post-soviet linguists.

2. Purpose of the Article. The purpose of this article is to find out the main causes of the parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistic and “post-soviet” Linguoculturology. Our discussions are based on the following: if two sciences are methodologically more different than similar, they should be considered as two different scientific disciplines, so even with an apparent similarity between their terminologies, primarily in their names, they cannot be used interchangeably as well as it is incorrect to adapt or confuse them.

3. Differences on the background of commonalities: relationships between Cultural Linguistics, Linguo­culturology and Ethnolinguistics, and Cognitive Linguistics.

3.1. Ethnolinguistic origins of Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology. In “western”, especially in Ame­rican human sciences, the terms Anthropological Linguistics and Ethnolinguistics are often used interchangeably. While in post-soviet Linguistics the term Anthropological Linguistics is «alien» that is why it is uncommon, but the term Ethnolinguistics is rather widespread because it corresponds to both a direction and science. Post-soviet Ethnolinguistics in its “pure” form, i. e. primarily based on the ideas of V. Toporov’s etymological school and M. Tolstoi’s dialectological school, is different from its “western” counterpart which mainly focuses, particularly the US Ethnolinguistics, on the languages of ethnic minorities and socio-pragmatic aspect of speech activity (Crystal 412). Taking into account the fact that Soviet Ethnolinguistics, which promoted the idea of a common general Slavic language and cultural space, left the borders of the USSR and spread to other Slavic countries, mostly to Poland, E. Bartmiński, the founder of Lublin ethnolinguistic school, calls these two types of Ethnolinguistics as “Slavic Ethnolinguistics” and “Western (English) Ethnolinguistics)” (Bartmiński 18).

Thus, Cultural Linguistics can be considered to be a product of a “western” type of Ethnolinguistics, while Linguoculturology is a “soviet” and “post-soviet” type. In fact, that was the reason that methodological tools of the subjects compared are significantly different. It is noteworthy that the “soviet” and “post-soviet” types of Ethnolinguistics have some differences because the methodology constantly evolves and in ethnolinguistic definitions the concept “culture” has become more commonly used compared to such concepts as “folk psychology”, “folk language”, “folklore”, “mythology”, “belief”, “rites” and the like. These days Ethnolinguistics has been transformed in a complex science in the post-soviet space which aims at studying the content of culture, folk psychology and mythology regardless of their means, methods and shapes. Some definitions of Ethnolinguistics create a precedent when all borders between Ethnolinguistics and Linguoculturology are not found, for example: “Ethnolinguistics – a branch of Linguistics that studies language as a creative product of native speakers i. e. ethnic group that created this language phenomenon as a key element and an engine of national culture” (Zhayvoronok 8). This is not surprising because Ethnolinguistics that lies within the scope of Linguistics, Ethnography, Folklore Studies, Culturology and Sociology is closely linked to the culture of an ethnic group.

The common post-soviet linguists’ idea that Linguoculturology is only a part of Ethnolinguistics (V. Krasnykh, V. Teliia et al.), we understand as follows: Linguoculturology emerged from soviet Ethnolinguistics and became a part of post-soviet Ethnolinguistics. This fact is only obvious, however, in terms of chronology and genetic connection. In fact, you can hardly find any relationships between current Linguoculturology with etymological, dialect and mytho­logical studies of Soviet Ethnolinguistics because it was formed mainly as a result of “qualitative leap” caused by a rapid expansion of Cognitive Linguistics into post-soviet Linguistics. Moreover, some socio-cultural and socio-historical processes contributed a lot to the emergence of Linguoculturology which took place in the late 20th century in the post-soviet space, especially in Russia, because we should not forget that Linguoculturology is originally Russian scientific product (Vorkachjov 16). We should not forget that in Russia at that time there was a social, rather public, orders for this new field of knowledge, when in 1996 B. Yeltsyn announced a targeted search for a unifying “national idea”, which could “seal” all nationalities in Russia around the “great-state” centre (now this idea is embodied in “spiritual braces” of the Russians). And the very methodology of Ethnolinguistics changed according to the times. Therefore, ethnolinguistic studies began to go far beyond ethnographical, mythological and area (dialect) aspects, because it was more relevant to assess ethnic phenomena linguoculturally. Actually, this was the foundation which created a new interdisciplinary field of Linguistics – Linguoculturology. Our ideas are also confirmed by similar processes in Polish, particularly Lublin, Ethnolinguistics, where at this very time Dialect Ethnolinguistics transformed into Cognitive one (Bartmiński 10).

3.2. Cognitive Linguistics as a methodological basis for Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology. Cognitive Linguistics, one of the main objectives of which is to find those tools that can serve as “keys” to the human’s mental world, created a powerful methodological base for new human studies-oriented disciplines in the field of Linguistics, particularly for Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology. However, the latter ones “borrowed” from Cognitive Linguistics its own “set” of tools. As the article has a limited space we are to briefly outline main analytical tools of these disciplines.

We should emphasize that the Cultural Linguistics research tools rest theoretically on the notion “cultural cognition”, which is based on the integrated understanding of such notions as “culture” and “cognition” in their correlation with the language. Cultural cognition is a complex adaptive system which appears as a result of interaction between members of language community in space and time (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 3); it is the form of cognition that shows the result of interaction between parts of the whole (group participants). However, it is not simply a complex of these parts (i. e. it is not merely a sum of separate participants’ cognitive systems), it is something greater, something that stimulates its development. Just like any developing system, cultural cognition demonstrates a dynamic character. This understanding of cultural cognition is based on the notion “collective cognition” which characterizes a cultural group (for details, see: Wilson).

Since language is considered to be the universal cognitive phenomenon, it is the main constituent of cultural cognition, serving as the depository for collective memory of a certain language community’s cultural cognition. Moreover, we can consider language to be a primary cultural cognition accumulation and communication mechanism i. e. both as a memory “bank” and a rapid means for transmitting or retransmitting cultural cognition and its components – cultural conceptualizations. The adherents of Cultural Linguistics emphasize that language is a form of culture, that is why conceptualizations which underlie language and speech are mainly formed by cultural systems (Yu, “The Chinese Conceptualization of the Heart and Its Cultural Context” 65). Consequently, the main purpose of Cultural Linguistics is to study the interrelationship between language (speech) and cultural conceptualizations.

The notion “cultural conceptualizations” includes a set of analytical tools used for studying peculiarities of cultural cognition objectivation in different world languages. These are such mental constructions as (1) cultural schemas (including cultural models), (2) cultural categories (including cultural prototypes), and (3) cultural metaphors. While adopting from cognitive linguistics the above mentioned tools have not only changed the attribute cognitive for cultural but also experienced a certain reinterpretation:

1) cultural schemas are considered to be one of varieties of cognitive schemas (in cognitive sciences they are also denoted by other terms, for example: script, frame, cognitive field). These schemata are formed by a culture; they are an essential part of collective cognitions which are associated with a certain cultural group. Consequently, cultural schemata are based on common experience typically found in this group unlike idiosyncratic experience of individuals. They are the constructs that provide individuals with cultural senses exchange (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 40). It is note­worthy that anthropologists widely use the term cultural schemas, often substituting it for a different one – cultural models (see: Strauss, Quinn). However, such duplication is obviously improper because the models are usually more complex cognitive schemas which include both metaphors and schemas. A good example of this is a cultural model the “American wedding” which is based on such metaphors as MARRIAGE IS AN ONGOING JOURNEY (Quinn). But such notion as “privacy”, F. Sharifian refers to cultural schemas (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 42). However, we believe that such notions are too big for one schema as they have a great importance for linguoculture by forming cognitive vs. cultural model based on sets of schemas;

2) cultural categories are a variety of cognitive categories. Categorization is known to be the most fundamental human cognitive activity because while perceiving real world human cognition permanently activates a correlation between any object of cognition and a certain category. It means that any information, processed by the human brain, passes through a “filter” formed by cognitive categories which have a certain system and a structural organization. This organization demonstrates a clear hierarchy. At the same time, the notion can belong simultaneously to different over- and subcategories. For example, notions “cup” or “bowl” can belong to such categories as “meal”, “drinks”, “artefacts”, and “crockery”. Since categories are culturally determined and associatively related with language signs (numerous language units serve as a denotation for categories and their prototypes), it resulted in the emergence of the notion “cultural categorization” (for details, see: Glushko, Maglio, Matlock, Barsalou 129). Cultural categories closely correlate with cultural schemas. F. Sharifian (Advances in Cultural Linguistics 43) emphasizes that, for example, the above mentioned notion “wedding” can be both a category (e. g., “wedding ceremony”, “wedding reception” etc.) and a schema (e. g., various actions and roles performed by wedding participants);

3) cultural metaphors are based on cognitive metaphors which are a part of the cognitive conceptualization process of one area of human knowledge in terms of another one (Lakoff, Johnson). The representatives of Cognitive Linguistics have shown in a vast number of studies how a human comprehends both themselves and the world around through cognitive metaphors. A good example here is the fact that “hour-calendar” industrial linguocultures usually interpret time in terms of goods, money, limited resource etc. In English it is represented by such word combinations as buying time, saving time and the like. Cognitive metaphors allow an individual to conceptualize, for example, opinions, senses, character traits etc. in terms of the body parts (Sharifian, “Cultural Linguistics” 43). As well as cognitive metaphors, cultural metaphors present more difficult mental constructs – schemas and models. A range of scientific studies, carried out in the field of Cultural Linguistics, have found out ethnospecific cultural metaphors, which emerged in different linguocommunities on the base of folk traditions, customs, beliefs etc. For example, Indonesians have a widely spread cultural metaphor LOVE is A LIVER (Siahaan), while the representatives of Chinese language ethnos have the metaphor HEART is A BODY DRIVER (Yu, “The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive Perspective: Culture, Body, and Language”).

Thus, cultural schemas, cultural categories and cultural metaphors are three basic “keys” for studying peculiarities of cultural cognition objectivation in different linguocultures. Here we should also emphasize the importance of cultural models and cultural prototypes. These mental constructs are so closely related to cultural schemas and cultural categories, though, that their distinction often has subjective character and depends on a researcher’s theoretical and methodological position. Scientific validity of these tools is confirmed by a wide range of research in the framework of Cognitive Linguistics from which they have been adapted to Cultural Linguistics being somewhat reformulated.

On the background of clearly defined research tools of Cultural Linguistics, methodological “chaos” of Linguo­culturology is especially noticeable as it still lacks (1) both more or less well developed and verification reliable procedures for linguocultural analysis, (2) a clearly defined basic epistemological unit of linguocultural research, as well as (3) a linguocultural method itself.

A critical review of linguocultural studies has shown that linguocultureme, language personality, culture code and linguocultural concept can function as basic research units in Linguoculturology. However, epistemological status of the first three, in our opinion, is doubtful (Mizin, Petrov 11–30). The main problem here is that linguocultureme, language personality and culture code, unlike concept, emerged in the environment of post-soviet researchers as a result of powerful influence of semiotic ideas in soviet and post-soviet Linguistics. In fact, they are an attempt to connect construct material and mental in one research – the sign which goes out in a culture, primarily a language one, and those cognitive mechanisms which this sign activates in comprehending a person’s objective world. This attempt appeared to be un­successful because, as a matter of principle, it combines uncombinable. It is especially noticeable in case of linguo­cultureme. That is why linguocultureme, language personality and culture code can really have a status of linguo­culturological units, as some of its taxonomies, but not as analytical tools.

Things are different with linguocultural concept which is not simply borrowed from “western” Cognitive Linguistics, but it is also adapted to post-soviet culturological area in Linguistics since the concept is considered to be a multidimensional semantic formation which includes conceptual, perceptive and imaginative, and value components (V. Karasik, A. Prykhodko). Epistemological potential of this mental construct is based on the idea that “it is the consciousness that provides an interaction between language and culture, for this reason any linguocultural research is a cognitive research as well” (Karasik, Slyshkin 76).

Methodological adequacy of linguocultural concept as a research tool in linguoculturological studies is based on its nature, as this mental construct links cognition, as an element of human consciousness, with the latter’s culture and its language, because the only way of these mental phenomena empiric legalization is their objectivation in language. The capacity of language signs for the concept reconstruction is primarily based on their cognitive function since it is the knowledge (information) about objective world accumulation that facilitates concepts formation: first in the naive picture of the world, and then – in scientific. Concepts are known to be constructed in consciousness that is why we have a possibility to use these language signs to trace this cognitive process in the opposite direction i. e. to reconstruct a concept, find out a set of factors and pre-conditions of its formation – universal (common cultural legacy, historical and geographical contact of language ethnos) and specific (peculiarities of historical, sociocultural development of linguocommunity, its geographical location etc.). Methodologically relevant for the concept reconstruction is the analogy “tooth is a dinosaur”: “[…] if a tooth makes it possible to recreate a dinosaur; a concept which is system-related to all other concepts within a certain linguoculture allows finding a system of values of this linguoculture” (Karasik, Prokhvacheva, Zubkova, Grabarova 7).

For linguoculturological studies a language based fragment reconstruction of cognitive (vs. concept) picture of the world where universal cognitive, psycho-mental and psycho-physiological mechanisms and constructs, which form this picture as a result of etno- and socio-cultural development of a speaker vs. speakers, are “influenced” by the factors which affect world perception, world understanding and behaviour of linguocommunity representatives. These fragments of cognitive picture of the world are presented by specific concepts, that is why concepts reconstruction is a reliable infor­mation source of language ethnos’s value references. Consequently, in our opinion the main purpose of Linguoculturology is to “draw”, through the analysis of language signs (it is a matter of principle!), as much linguoculturally significant information as possible for both universal and unique concepts objectivation (reconstructions) of two and more language communities.

4. Discussion. If we compare the methodology of Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology in general, we can easily notice the following points:

1) among analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics there is no room for one of the basic epistemological units of Cognitive Linguistics – concept; while conceptological studies are predominant in Linguoculturology which resulted in a methodological basis for a new direction – linguoconceptology (Міzin, “Lіngvokul’turnij Koncept “Kapcі”, abo shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji” 17);

2) works of cultural linguistics adherents rarely mention such crucial notion for any culture as “value” (vs. “cultural value”). Researchers even emphasize that the most important differences between cultures are not differences in customs, traditions, art forms, etc., but the differences in cultural values as the latter ones are the values which dominate in a specific linguoculture and serve as a basis for beliefs, opinions and attitudes (vs. relationships, vs. relations), communicative habits of representatives of this linguoculture (Peeters 769). However, it might not be necessary to focus on the term “cultural values” in cultural linguistics because values are hidden behind the term “cultural conceptualization”, since the latter includes cultural categories and cultural schemata and cultural metaphors determined by a system of values in a specific linguocommunity.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics can potentially correlate with each of the three components of the linguocultural concept – conceptual, perceptive and imaginative, and value. This fact is a strong argument in favour of the latter’s scientific validity and it also confirms the above mentioned thoughts on the important role of epistemological concept in the field of linguocultural studies.

If we study this drawing superficially, the first thing that catches our eye is a complexity of concept as an analytical unit. It is no wonder that the analysis of any linguocultural concept involves a number of research procedures, verified by representatives of both traditional and modern Linguistics. For this reason, post-soviet Linguistics has not worked a clearly defined concept analysis, although the number of concept studies after “concept boom” does not decrease but they have risen in early 21st century. We believe that this is caused by the complexity of the concept which requires inter­disciplinary methodological approach making this epistemological construct “methodologically open”. In this regard, linguocultural concept seems, especially when looking closer at the above drawing, to “absorb” the analytical tools of Cultural Linguistics: firstly, cultural schemas, cultural categories as well as cultural metaphors are manifested in a language – a name behind which there is a concept. Examining this concept is one of the first stages in scientific studies that are carried out in both Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology as concept always includes a conceptual com­ponent. Secondly, both cultural schemas and cultural categories, particularly prototypes, and cultural metaphors evoke a certain image vs. some images in the consciousness. It is clear that any linguocultural concept, even abstract, is associated with specific figurative ideas. That is why it has an imaginative and perceptive component. It is cognitive metaphors that help to find these images. Thirdly, if schemas (models), categories (prototypes) and metaphors contain an attribute “cultural”, it means that they are directly related to a linguocommunity culture. Culture as a social phenomenon is defined according to value guidelines and priorities. This is what creates the basis for the correlation of Cultural Linguistics analytical tools with the value component of a linguocultural concept.

Conclusions. This article examines a parallel development of “western” Cultural Linguistics and “post-soviet” Linguoculturology. It has been found out that these two sciences emerged almost simultaneously in different parts of the world. However, despite practically identical goal of research – research into relationships and interactions between language and culture in the processes of categorization and conceptualization of the objective world by different linguocultures representatives, they are developing in «isolation» from each other. Since Cultural Linguistics and Linguoculturology have more differences rather than commonalities in terms of their methodological tools, they should be considered as two different scientific areas, so even with the apparent similarity between their terminologies, mainly names, they should not be used interchangeably, adapted or confused.

We have found out that a common point for both areas of Linguistics is their interdisciplinarity and the fact that they appeared mostly on the theoretical and methodological basis of Ethnolinguistics and Cognitive Linguistics. However, these sciences “borrowed” from cognitive linguistics its own “set” of tools. As for ethnolinguistic background, here we can also find a significant difference: Cultural Linguistics originated in the “western” type of Ethnolinguistics, primarily American, whereas Linguoculturology – “soviet”, mostly “post-soviet”.

Cultural Linguistics is now actively spreading in Western European Linguistics, since it aims, as well as Linguo­culturology, at solving the problem, which linguist-anthropologists have had for centuries – a correlation between language, culture and thinking (primarily cognition as a component of consciousness). Theoretical basis for the recognition of the correlation is an idea that a language has a specific way of adjusting (modelling or even determining) thinking and outlook of a person. Therefore, Cultural Linguistics, with its interdisciplinary origins, is directly concerned with identifying features of human languages that contain human experience conceptualizations designed (constructed, formed) by means of culture. It is language that stores cultural conceptualizations which incorporate in a single unity different stages of historical development of a language community that has left its footprints in language and speech activity of modern representatives of this community. When defining features of human languages and their many types Cultural Linguistics is based on such cultural conceptualizations as cultural schemas, cultural categories and cultural metaphors, which, in their turn, are based on the theoretical basis of cultural cognition.

We have found out that the four phenomena, claiming to be an epistemological construct in linguoculturological studies – linguoculturemes, a (national) language personality, a culture code, and a linguoculturological concept, only the last is a scientifically valid research tool. Methodological adequacy of a linguoculturological concept is based on its nature because this mental construct connects cognition as a part of human consciousness with the latter’s culture and language, as the only way of empirical legalization of mental phenomena is their objectification in a language. A strong argument in favour of the importance of an epistemological concept in the field of linguoculturological studies is the fact that major research tools of Cultural Linguistics – cultural categories, cultural schemas and cultural metaphors – can potentially correlate with each of the three components of a linguocultural concept.

References

1. Advances in Cultural Linguistics / ed. by Farzad Sharifian. Singapore: Springer, 2017. Print.

2. Alimzhanova, Gauhar. “Sopostavitel’naja lingvokul’turologija: sushhnost’, principy, edinicy (Contrastive Lingvoculturology: Essence, Principles, Units)”. Diss. Ablai Khan U. of International Relations and World Languages, 2010. Abstract. Print.

3. Anusiewicz, Janusz. Lingwistyka kulturowa: zarys problematyki. Wrocław: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1995. Print.

4. Bartmiński, Jerzy. “Ethnolinguistics in the Year 2016”. Ethnolinguistic 28 (2017): 9–31. Print. DOI: 10.17951/et.2016.28.7.

5. Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Print.

6. Glushko, Robert, and Maglio, Paul, and Matlock, Teenie, and Barsalou, Lawrence. “Categorization in the Wild”. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12/4 (2008): 129–135. Print.

7. Karasik, Vladimir, and Slyshkin, Gennadij. “Lingvokul’turnyj koncept kak edinica issledovanija (Linguo­cultural Concept as a Unit of Research)”. Metodologicheskie problemy kognitivnoj lingvistiki (Methodological Problems of Cognitive Linguistics). Ed. by Iosif Sternin. Voronezh: VGU, 2001. 75–80. Print.

8. Karasik, Vladimir, and Prokhvacheva, Oksana, and Zubkova, Yana, and Grabarova, Emiliia. Inaja mental’nost’ (A Different Mentality). Moskva: Gnozis, 2005. Print.

9. Levchenko, Olena. Frazeolohichna symvolika: linhvokul’turolohichnyy aspekt (Phraseological Symbols: a Linguocultural Aspect). L’viv: LIDU NADU, 2005. Print.

10. Maslova, Valentina. Lingvokulturologiya (Linguoculturology). Moskva: Akademija, 2001. Print.

11. Mizin, Kostiantyn. “Ustaleni porivnyannya anhliys’koyi, nimets’koyi, ukrayins’koyi ta rosiys’koyi mov v aspekti zistavnoyi linhvokul’turolohiyi (Comparative Set Phrases in English, German, Ukrainian, and Russian from the Perspective of Contrastive Linguoculturology)”. Diss. Kyiv National Linguistic U, 2012. Abstract. Print.

12. Mizin, Kostiantyn. “Lіngvokul’turnij Koncept “Kapcі”, abo shhe Raz pro Metodologіchnі Slabkі Mіscja Lіngvokul’turologіji (The Linguocultural Concept “Slippers” or Once Again about Methodological Flaws in Linguoculturology)”. Movoznavstvo (Linguistics) 6 (2017): 16–29. Print.

13. Mizin, Kostiantyn, and Petrov, Olexandr. Zistavna linhvokul’turolohiya: metodolohichni problemy ta perspektyvni metodyky (Contrastive Linguoculturology: Methodological Problems and Perspective Methods). Pereyaslav-Khmel’nyts’kyy; Vinnytsya; Kremenchuk: Shcherbatykh O.V., 2018. Print.

14. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Print.

15. Quinn, Naomi. “Convergent Evidence for a Cultural Model of American Marriage”. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Ed. by Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 173–192. Print.

16. Palmer, Gary. Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996. Print.

17. Bert. “PRIKLADNAJA ETNOLINGVISTIKA – eto lingvokul’turologija, no LINGVOKUL’TUROLOGIJA li? (APPLIED ETHNOLINGUISTICS is Cultural Linguistics, but is It CULTURAL LINGUISTICS?)”. Zhanry rechi (Genres of Speech) 1/15 (2017): 7–50. Print. DOI: 10.18500/2311-0740-2017-1-15-37-50.

18. Peeters, Bert. “APPLIED ETHNOLINGUISTICS is Cultural Linguistics, but is It CULTURAL LINGUISTICS?”. Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Ed. by Farzad Sharifian. Singapore: Springer, 2017. 758–802. Print.

19. Sharifian, Farzad. “Kul’turologicheskaja lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaja kommunikacija (Cultural Linguistics & Intercultural Communication)”. Filologicheskie nauki (Philological Sciences) 3 (2015): 80–97. Print.

20. Sharifian, Farzad. “Cultural Linguistics”. Ethnolinguistic 28 (2017): 33–61. Print. DOI: 10.17951/et.2016.28.31.

21. Sharifian, Farzad. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2017. Print.

22. Siahaan, Poppy. “Did He Break Your Heart or Your Liver? A Contrastive Study on Metaphorical Concepts from the Source Domain Organ in English and in Indonesian”. Body, Culture, and Language: Conceptualisations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Ed. by Farzad Sharifian et al. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. 45–74. Print.

23. Strauss, Claudia, and Quinn, Naomi. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.

24. Vorkachjov, Sergej. ““Kuda zh nam plyt’?” – lingvokul’turnaja konceptologija: sovremennoe sostojanie, problemy, vektor razvitija (“Where should we sail?” – Linguocultural Conceptology: Current State, Problems and Development Vector)”. Jazyk, kommunikacija i social’naja sreda (Language, Communication and Social Environment) 8 (2010): 5–27. Print.

25. Vorob’jov, Vladimir. “Teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty lingvokul’turologii (Theoretical and applied aspects of linguoculturology)”. Diss. Peoples’ Friendship U. of Russia, 1996. Abstract. Print.

26. Wilson, Robert. “Collective Memory, Group Minds, and the Extended Mind Thesis”. Cognitive Processing 6/4 (2005): 227–236. Print.

27. Yu, Ning. “The Chinese Conceptualization of the Heart and Its Cultural Context”. Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Communication. Ed. by Farzad Sharifian and Gary Palmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. 65–85. Print.

28. Yu, Ning. The Chinese HEART in a Cognitive Perspective: Culture, Body, and Language. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Print.

29. Zahnitko, Anatoliy, and Sakharuk, Inna. Linhvokulturolohiya (Linguoculturology). Donets’k: DonNU, 2014. Print.

30. Zhayvoronok, Vitaliy. Ukrayins’ka etnolinhvistyka (Ukrainian Ethnolinguistics). Kyyiv: Dovira, 2007.