ON THE NATIONAL CULTURE COMPONENT IN THE SEMANTICS OF IDIOMS

The article is aimed at the delineation of a number of controversial issues in the identification of the national culture component in the semantics of idioms, originating from its variable and transitory nature.

Vivid cultural connotation of idioms has been emphasized by many Russian researchers since the early days of phraseological studies. Hence, it is not surprising that idioms occupy the central place as the subject for cultural linguistics (linguocultural studies in domestic terminology).

One of the problems, which require thorough investigation, is the problem of detecting the national culture component in the semantics of idioms and the reliable criteria of its identification. The difficulties in defining these criteria result from the multifaceted character of the concept of culture, the complicated interaction between different cultures, and the role played by language, on the one hand, as an integral part of culture, and on the other, as the means of storing and transferring culture. In view of the above, the article can be regarded as up-to-date and timely.

The article reveals variability in the national culture component, which contributes to its scholarly novelty.

It is possible to state that numerous phraseological studies done in cultural linguistics are basically aimed at cross-linguistic analysis of national culture features of idioms

The national culture component (or national culture specifics) is understood as a marker of a specific cultural feature in the semantics of an idiom. Two distinct approaches to its identification can be delineated. One approach consists in the attempt to connect the idiom semantics with a cultural / semiotic code, cultural signs or stereotypes, beliefs or myths, this being regarded as the indispensable requirement for confirming the existence of the national culture component

In continuation of the study done in the above-mentioned article, let us consider the following pair of idioms:

To rise with the lark – вставать с петухами (to rise with cockerels).

The images on which these idioms are based, and their meanings are very similar: a person gets up when birds wake up, which means “very early”. The difference concerns the breed of bird / fowl mentioned in the idioms. Both a lark and a cockerel wake up at dawn, around four a.m. To make sure, a cockerel wakes up and cries two times before that, but it is difficult to imagine that a person normally got up with its first cry. A person mostly got up when it was light enough to do some work in the countryside. The literal meaning of both idioms definitely refers to the countryside, as larks and cockerels are not town birds. It is very doubtful that we can trace any specific culture components due to the difference in the components of the idioms, though we can definitely say that the idioms reflect the daily routine in both cultures.

But even in those cases where idioms contain components naming some specific cultural objects, the situation is not straightforward. Let us consider some idioms connected with the gastronomic code in English and Russian phraseology.

Печь как блины – создавать что-либо быстро и в большом количестве (bake like blinis – to produce something quickly and in big numbers).

Blinis, pan-sized thin pancakes, are traditionally associated with Russian cuisine and Russian culture. Though pancakes are well-known for the British public and cuisine (there is a Pancake Day, or Shrove Tuesday, when pancakes are made, there’s also an idiom “flat as a pancake”), blinis are somewhat different. So we may assume that in the above idiom the component “блины”, as well as the whole image of baking them, are connected with Russian culture. This allows us to conclude that there exists a national culture component in this idiom. But then we turn to Belorussian and discover the idiom “печ як блiны” (bake like blinis), which has the same meaning, image and component, naming the same thing. So if we compare the Russian and Belorussian idiom, no specific national culture component will be revealed. But if we compare them separately to English idioms, we will state the presence of this component in each idiom.

Likewise, if we look at the following English idiom “bring home the bacon – to earn money for the family to live on”, we will state that bacon is an integral part of English cuisine and, in particular, traditional English breakfast, consequently, the word “bacon” names an object typical of English material culture. If we compare this idiom with Russian ones, we won’t find any with the equivalent component. Going by this fact, we may try to conclude that the idiom has the national culture component. Moreover, in Russian there is an idiom, which shares an invariant image with the English one: добывать хлеб – зарабатывать средства на существование (to get bread – to earn money to live on). It is very tempting to assume that here we also have a component referring to Russian culture, especially because there are so many idioms in Russian with the component “хлеб”: сидеть на хлебе и воде, тяжелый хлеб, есть чужой хлеб, перебиваться с хлеба на квас (воду), встречать с хлебом-солью et al. So at first glance it stands to reason to say that in these idioms in parallel to the above-mentioned English idiom “bring home the bacon”, an object associated with Russian culture is mentioned.

But if we look at Spanish phraseology, we will find an idiom with a similar image, meaning and component: traer / llevar el pan a casa (to bring bread home). According to N.G. Med, there are idioms in Spanish with the component “pan”, as well as in other Romance languages

The same kind of situation arises if we turn our attention to idioms with anthropocentric components.

 Drunk as a fiddler - пьян как сапожник (drunk as a cobbler).

The choice of a typical lover of alcohol in both cultures is easy to explain. A fiddler playing at weddings was given a lot of alcohol, so that he will play more and ask for a smaller payment. A cobbler often worked in the street without any shelter, so he drank alcohol to warm himself up in harsh weather. The connection with the national everyday culture can be traced in both cases, so we can assume that these idioms possess the national culture component.

But if we turn to Belorussian, we will find “п'яны як шавец” (drunk as a cobbler), with the word “шавец” meaning “a cobbler”. So again, as in the previous case, if we compare English and Russian, or English and Belorussian idioms, the national culture component can be traced, but if we compare Russian and Belorussian idioms, we cannot find it.

In this connection, D.O. Dobrovolskj and A.N. Baranov suggest limiting the comparison of idioms by two languages, regardless of other languages and their idioms

The undertaken analysis allows us to come to the following conclusions:

1. The concept of the national culture component is characterized by relativity and variability. The originality of culture reflected by idioms is best of all revealed when distant languages are compared. It is by far more difficult to identify it when dealing with similar, closely-related languages. The possibility to disclose a national culture component in the semantics of idioms is directly dependent on what pair of languages is studied. The introduction of a third language, not necessarily closely related to those in the pair, like Spanish for example is not closely related to English or Russian, can radically change the situation with the presence of the national culture component in the idiom semantics.

2. The above made conclusion is valid only if the national culture component is defined as a culturally specific feature, i.e. a feature different from those of other cultures. If we drop the requirement of originality and assume that the culture of every nation comprises universal, common with other cultures and unique features, then we will be able to discover the connection with culture regardless of its being unique / specific. In other words, the connection of an idiom with culture is easily traceable, but the presence of the specific cultural component is debatable and varies depending on a number of factors.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that, in our opinion, the analysed controversies stipulate the necessity to further elaborate and define the concept of the national culture component.