CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN LEXICAL EXPRESSIONS OF VALUATION
Downloads
Objective: This study attempts to analyze the differences in lexical, idiomatic and pragmatic forms of valuation used in English and Russian, pointing out cultural patterns, conventional ways to speak and meaning. Method: By taking a cross-linguistic, data-driven approach, this research explains how we value objects on various cultural and pragmatic levels, filling in gaps noted in earlier research and practice. Results: It was found that English often chose language that is soft and polite, but Russian prefers straightforward, emotionally expressive language focusing on being sincere and clear in its values, illustrating how their cultures differ. Novelty: Despite the previous research available on metaphor and universals, not many have studied and compared the evaluative lexical units from these two languages using an integrated method. Unique Point: Although English and Russian agree that value is commonly matched to height or brightness in thought, English generally considers it within a personal and financial context, whereas Russian prefers talking about value in terms of morality, community and emotions.
A. Wierzbicka, Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, Oxford University Press, 1997.
N. Yu, The Moral Metaphor System: A Conceptual Metaphor Approach, Peter Lang, 2009.
F. Sharifian, Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language, John Benjamins, 2017.
J. R. Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2003.
G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, 1980.
F. Sharifian, “Cultural Schemas in Intercultural Communication,” in Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 167–190, 2007.
A. Pavlenko, Emotions and Multilingualism, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
S. Levinson, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, MIT Press, 2000.
A. Goddard and A. Wierzbicka, Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, John Benjamins, 2002.
B. Kövecses, Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
D. Geeraerts, Theories of Lexical Semantics, Oxford University Press, 2010.
E. Weigand, Contrastive Sociolinguistics, de Gruyter, 1999.
A. Baranov and D. Dobrovol’skij, Russian Phraseology in Contrast with English, de Gruyter, 2011.
D. Dobrovol’skij and E. Piirainen, Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Elsevier, 2015.
J. Evans and K. Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
F. Sharifian, “Cultural Conceptualizations and Language,” Language and Communication, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 20–35, 2008.
A. Chesterman, Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory, John Benjamins, 1997.
J. House, Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present, Routledge, 2015.
M. Byram, Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Multilingual Matters, 1997.
M. Tomasello, Origins of Human Communication, MIT Press, 2008.
Copyright (c) 2025 Pardaeva Farangiza Husniddin qizi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
