Lexical Means of Verbalization of Human Age in Russian and Chinese Worldviews

Abstract

Age is the basic category that determines human existence and consciousness. It is a key parameter for determining the life characteristics of a person, their physical and mental states, behavior, etc. This article deals with the comparative study of verbalization of a person’s age by means of Russian and Chinese lan guages. The main research methods used in the article are the methods of definitions, field and comparative analyses. The aim of the work is to identify isomorphic and allomorphic features of verbalization of a person’s age by means of Russian and Chinese word-stock and to reveal similar and divergent ideas of human age from the speakers of Russian and Chinese. In this work comparative analysis of the structures of the lexical-semantic fields ‘age’ is carried out. The main age periods of a person’s life in the Russian and Chinese worldviews and ways of replenishing the lexical composition of the Russian and Chinese languages are revealed as well. The lexical system also reflects typical ideas of the speakers of Russian and Chinese about each age period. The results of the study reveal the specifics of verbalization of human age by means of Russian and Chinese word-stock and provide a better understanding of the worldviews of the Russian and Chinese nations in the sphere of comparative linguistics.

References

1. Arnol’d I.V. 1991. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie teorii vzaimodeistviya sistemy i sredy [Modern linguistic theories of interaction between the system and the environment]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, no. 3, pp. 118–126. (In Russ.)

2. Dou Chunyao. 2019. Russkie i kitaiskie frazeologizmy s semantikoi ‘vozrast’: sopostavitel’nyi aspect [Russian and Chinese phraseological units with semantics of ‘age’: comparative aspect]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 2, pp. 173–179. (In Russ.)

3. Karaulov Yu.N. 1976. Obshchaya i russkaya ideografiya [General and Russian ideography]. Moscow, Nauka. (In Russ.)

4. Kobozeva I.M. 2004. Lingvisticheskaya semantika [Linguistic semantics]. Izd. 2, Moscow, URSS. (In Russ.)

5. Krasnykh V.V. 2016. Slovar’ i grammatika lingvokul’tury: Osnovy psikholingvokul’turologii [Dictionary and grammar of linguoculture: Fundamentals of psycholinguoculturology]. Moscow, Gnozis. (In Russ.)

6. Levitskii A.E., Dou Chunyao. 2019. Vozrast cheloveka v zerkale lingvokul’tury [Human age in the mirror of linguoculture]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki, no. 6 (822), pp. 122–131. (In Russ.)

7. Levitskii A.E., Nikul’shina T.N. 2020. Nominatsiya ontologicheskogo prostranstva v russkikh i angliiskikh narodnykh skazkakh: sopostavitel’nyi aspect [Nomination of the Ontological Space in Russian and English Folk Tales: Comparative Aspect]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 3, pp. 9–23. (In Russ.)

8. Teliya V.N. 1988. Metaforizatsiya i ee rol’ v sozdanii yazykovoi kartiny mira [Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic worldview]. Rol’ chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke: Yazyk i kartina mira [The role of the human factor in language: Language and worldview]. Moscow, Nauka. pp. 173–204. (In Russ.)

9. Shmelev A.D. 2005. Leksicheskii sostav russkogo yazyka kak otrazhenie «russkoi dushi» [The lexical composition of the Russian language as a reflection of the “Russian soul”]. Klyuchevye idei russkoi yazykovoi kartiny mira [Key ideas of the Russian linguistic worldview]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, pp. 25–36. (In Russ.)