Tashkent state university of uzbek language and literature named after alisher navoi

CHAPTER II. LINGUO-CULTURAL ASPECTS OF SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETING


2.1. Culturally marked language units
Culturally marked vocabulary in a language the most vivid illustration of the difference between worlds reflected by different languages belonging to different peoples is the so-called culturally marked vocabulary. Indeed, differences in the real world surrounding different peoples lead to the formation of a certain layer of vocabulary in each language, denoting objects and phenomena of reality that are specific only to this linguistic community and therefore have no equivalents in other languages [Ter-Minasova, 2008: 143]. A foreigner studying Uzbek language will not understand the meaning of words such as “oqsoqol”, “mahalla”, “do’ppi”, if he has not encountered the objects or phenomena behind them. Despite a large number of studies devoted to the analysis of culturally marked language units, there is still no single term in linguistics denoting this group of vocabulary. Various authors describe discrepancies in languages and cultures as a cultural component, a national vocabulary, linguistic-specific vocabulary, lacunae, non-equivalent vocabulary, background knowledge, realias, and cultural names. It seems important to briefly dwell on the terms that are used to denote nationally labeled vocabulary in various linguistic studies. In cases where the correspondence of one or another lexical unit of one language in the vocabulary of another language is completely absent, it is customary to speak of a nonequivalent vocabulary. E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov gave the most accurate definition. By non-equivalent vocabulary, they understand words that serve to express concepts that are absent in another culture and in another language, words related to cultural elements characteristic only of culture A and absent in culture B, as well as words that do not have a translation into another language in one word, having no equivalents outside the language to which they belong [Vereshchagin, 2005]. At the same time, it is noted that a characteristic feature of non-equivalent words is their untranslatability into other languages by means of a certain lexeme, their inconsistency with some word of another language. But this does not mean that they are completely untranslatable. The ability to correctly convey the designations of the things in question in the original and the images associated with them presupposes knowledge of the reality depicted in the translated work. Behind this knowledge, both in country studies and in comparative linguistics and translation theory, the definition of "background" has been fixed. Background knowledge is "a set of ideas about what constitutes the real background on which the picture of the life of another country, another people unfolds" [Fedorov, 2002: 165]. In the works of such authors as V. Gudikunst and Y. Kim, R. Scollon and S. Wong Scollon, it means all our knowledge about the world around us. The structure of background knowledge includes, first of all, universal knowledge, although, of course, objective phenomena of reality can be perceived differently by speakers of different languages. Background knowledge includes regional information. The third type of background knowledge is the information that all members of a certain ethnic and linguistic community have. This information is related to the national culture. E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov in their works emphasize the linguistic and cultural nature of background knowledge. According to the definition of O. S. Akhmanova, background knowledge is "mutual knowledge of the realities of the speaker and the listener, which is the basis of language communication" [Akhmanova, 1966: 487]. In another work, O. S. Akhmanova and I. V. Gubbenet define background knowledge as a socio-cultural background that characterizes perceived speech [Akhmanova, 1977].
In cultural studies, the concept of "lacuna" is also used. It was introduced by Canadian linguists J. Wine and J. Darbelne. Their theory of lacunarity arose in response to the need of society to understand foreign-language texts in the context of intercultural contacts. A lacuna (= void, semantic void, blank space, gap) is an "empty space", a "gap", something that does not exist in the language and culture of one people, but is present in another people and is revealed as such when compared with the language and culture of this people. In the most general understanding, a lacuna is a discrepancy that occurs when comparing conceptual, linguistic, emotional and other categories of two or more linguistic and cultural communities [Barkhudarov, 2008; Bykova, 2003]. In Russian psycholinguistics, the beginning of developments in the field of lacuna theory was laid by Yu.A. Sorokin and I.Yu. Markovina in a number of publications. The authors introduced the concept of lacunae as a signal of the specificity of linguistic and cultural community, developed a conceptual and terminological apparatus for describing the phenomenon of lacunarity, identified and systematized varieties of lacunae, and introduced the concepts of filling and compensation as ways of eliminating lacunae. In Russian science, it is customary to distinguish between: - linguistic lacunae (lexical, grammatical, stylistic, etc.); - cultural lacunae (ethnographic, psychological, behavioral, kinesic, etc.) [Tarasova, 2003: 227]. Obviously, the term "lacuna" is interpreted very broadly. Words with a cultural component denote lexical units, the peculiar semantics of which reflects the specifics of the culture of the people. The denotation, which is designated by such a word, on the one hand, can be universal, have widespread distribution, and on the other hand, it can belong only to a given region or a given culture. Words with a cultural component belong to the category of non-equivalent vocabulary, which is revealed when comparing languages of different cultures [Alexandrova, 2007: 29]. The concept of a cultural component as part of the semantic structure of a word was introduced into scientific circulation by N.G. Komlev (2006) and presented in the works of E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov (1980), V.I. Goverdovsky (1989), Yu.P. Solodub (2005), etc. The cultural component is considered by researchers as the dependence of the semantics of language on the cultural environment of an individual; reflection in the meaning of the national-specific perception of a particular people of any realities, fragments of reality and even pure constructs of popular consciousness; something different from its lexical meaning , additional information to the lexical meaning. The nature of the cultural component, which ensures its functional purpose, is to be a means of transmitting background information [Ivanishcheva, 2003: 38]. The cultural component is a part of the content of a language sign, which reflects the knowledge of culture. The term "reality" appeared in translation studies in the 40s of the XX century to denote a nationally specific object or phenomenon. L.S. Barkhudarov gives a rather concise definition of realias: "... words denoting objects, concepts and situations that do not exist in the practical experience of people speaking another language" [Barkhudarov, 2008: 95]. According to A.V. Fedorova realias are not words, but those objects, situations, and so on that are designated by words. The author suggests talking not about realias, but about "names of realias". A.D. Schweitzer defines realias as "concepts studied by external linguistics related to the state structure of a given country, history, material and spiritual culture of a given people" [Schweitzer, 1988: 153]. By definition, G.D. Tomakhin, realias are "names of objects of material culture inherent only to certain nations and peoples, historical facts, state institutions, names of national and folklore heroes, mythological creatures, etc." [Tomakhin, 1997: 13].
2.2. Classification of culturally marked language units
The work of Bulgarian linguists S. Vlakhov and S. Florin "The Untranslatable in translation" is entirely devoted to problems related to realias, in particular, to the problems of identifying and defining realias, their classification and translation problems. In this work, these researchers give the most complete definition of realias: "Realias are words and phrases that name objects, phenomena, objects characteristic of life, everyday life, culture, social development of one people and unfamiliar or alien to another people, expressing national and (or) temporal flavor, which, as a rule, do not have exact correspondences in another language and require a special approach when translating" [Vlakhov, 1986: 47]. Having considered in detail the basic concepts used to denote culturally marked vocabulary, we consider the broad term "culturonym", introduced by V.V. Kabakchi in the theory of intercultural communication, to be the most acceptable for our research. Culturonyms are linguistic units assigned to elements of culture [Kabakchi, 1998: 16].
V.V. Kabakchi identifies the following types of cultural names:
1. Polyonyms are nouns and substantive phrases that act as designations of such elements of the world around us that are represented in all or most of the currently existing cultures of the peoples of the world. Examples from the Russian language can be given: man, woman, character, youth, money. 2. Idionyms are words denoting specific elements of internal culture - Shakespeare, the House of Commons, Beatles, Westminster - in English; tsar, steppe, Cossack, Old Believer – in Russian. 3. Xenonyms are words denoting specific elements of external cultures. In English, these include Acropolis, toreador, Eiffel Tower, Taj Mahal. The phenomenon of xenonymy is universal and is represented in all languages, since each nation should be able to use its own language to obtain information about other nations. Idionyms are the result of the primary verbalization of the cultural continuum, xenonyms are the result of the secondary verbalization of the cultural continuum. With primary verbalization, the language develops its own internal culture, with secondary - the language assigns names to those elements of external cultures that already have a name that arose as a result of primary verbalization. It is not difficult to notice that xenonyms are a foreign language way of designating idionyms. A connection is formed between the corresponding idionyms and xenonyms, which is based on the use of these cultural names to denote the same elements of culture. V.V. Kabakchi calls this connection a xenonymic correlation [Kabakchi, 1998: 21]. For example, a xenonymic correlation exists between the Russian word "Cossack" and the English word "Cossack". Kabakchi offers a thematic classification of xenonyms, which consists of the following thematic groups: - geographical vocabulary (various toponyms: Brazil, Volga) - historical vocabulary (Bismark, Caesar, Stalingrad) - political vocabulary (Bolshevik, Duma, perestroika) - religion (Buddha, Christmas, Orthodox Church) - education and science (madrassah, Sorbonne) - literature and art (Bolshoi Theatre, Mozart, War and Peace) - traditions and everyday life (chalet, igloo, isba) - foreign cultural conversational etiquette (Frau, Madame, signora) [Kabakchi, 1998: 22].
Xenonymic vocabulary, which conveys specific elements of external culture, being, first of all, a carrier of national color, actualizes certain signs in the recipient's mind, which can be considered as background knowledge, associations and connotations [Filatova, 2015: 89]. Russian xenonyms can cause representatives of other linguistic cultures to have certain associations due to their background knowledge of Russia, and therefore directly participate in the formation of the image of Russia in the foreign language communicative space.
There are different approaches to the interpretation of culturally marked linguistic units. In Russian linguistics and linguodidactics, the key role in the study of the cultural orientation of the verbal sign belongs to the fundamental works of V. G. Kostomarov and E.M. Vereshchagin, who developed the concept of linguistics, which served as an impulse for the emergence of numerous studies of the cultural conditionality of speech behavior. The research of scientists was a grand breakthrough in the realization of the idea of interconnected learning of languages and cultures. They proposed the concept of teaching a foreign language on the basis of linguistics - a focus of learning when a person, together with learning a foreign language, acquires "a huge spiritual wealth stored by the language being studied" [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov 1990, p. 246].
According to the linguistic theory of the word, the national specificity of the semantics of a lexical unit is provided by the content of national-cultural semantic shares in it. By national-cultural semantic shares, the authors understand those semantic features that "are formed, are formed within the boundaries of a certain ethno-cultural and national-linguistic community" [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1980, p.67].
Within the framework of linguistics, the meaning of a linguistic unit is studied on the basis of understanding the organic connection of language with non-linguistic reality, which is manifested in "the ability of language to reflect all the features of the functioning environment, the history of the native people, the peculiarities of its material and spiritual culture" [Tomakhin, 1984, p.6]. The researcher believes that the communication process is based on the fact that the sender of the message and the recipient of it have common background knowledge.
The main object of linguistics, according to V. G. Tomakhin, is the background knowledge possessed by members of a certain linguistic and ethnic community, therefore, the problems solved in this science partially cover the tasks of sociolinguistics.
Distinguishing three types of background knowledge – universal, regional and country-specific, V.G. Kostomarov and E.M. Vereshchagin pay special attention to country-specific knowledge, dividing them into actual background knowledge and background knowledge of cultural heritage. Among the country-specific knowledge, the knowledge that scientists call "weighted" background knowledge is of particular importance in linguodidactic terms – this is the knowledge that has the greatest significance for a given ethnic group or nationality [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1999]. According to the theory of background knowledge, the basis of the cultural specificity of linguistic units is the lexical background, understood as "a component of lexical semantics, which is responsible for the accumulation, transformation, storage, and also partly for the active production of national cultural information" [Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 2005, p. 73].
G.D. Tomakhin notes that background knowledge is a national-specific part of the cultural heritage of a certain national collective, which, as a rule, is not known to representatives of another linguistic culture, and is only part of the presupposition; the latter includes the entire volume of extralinguistic knowledge, which is based on previous experience, and on logical conclusions deduced from this experience. Background knowledge is interpreted as an element of mass culture and is divided into actual knowledge and knowledge of cultural heritage [Tomakhin, 1984, pp.11-12].
The researcher divides background knowledge by field of distribution into: 1) universal knowledge (for example, all people without exception know the sun, wind, birth, time, etc.); 2) regional information (not all residents of the tropics, for example, know what snow is); 3) information that only members of a certain ethnic and linguistic community (nation) have; 4) information available only to members locally (residents of a given locality) or a socially closed group - in linguistic terms, this corresponds to territorial and social dialects (for example, the names of local geographical objects and associated associations); 5) information available only to members of this micro-collective: such as a family, an educational or industrial group, etc. (for example, nicknames known only to a small circle of people, associations related to the history of this micro-collective, incidents that do not go beyond it).
National-cultural semantic shares can be included in the lexical concept (intensive) and such a word is considered as having arisen within a given historical community of people. Words of this kind are called equivalent vocabulary (E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov, 1980, A.S. Mamontov, 2000) or realities (G. D. Tomakhin, 1984; G.D. Tomakhin, 1988).
National semantic shares may be present at the level of the lexical background (implication). In these cases, conceptually identical lexical units have discrepancies in the field of semantic periphery, i.e. knowledge and associations associated with a given subject or phenomenon in the minds of native speakers of a given language. Such lexical units were called background vocabulary (G.D. Tomakhin (1988), V.V. Oshchepkova (1995), Yu.A. Vorobyov (1994)).
Researchers also propose other terms for the designation of national-cultural information as part of lexical meaning: the national-cultural component of meaning (L.V. Malakhovsky, L.T. Mikulina, 1982, 53, A.S. Mamontov, 1999, 152), as well as the cultural-historical component [Oshchepkova, 1995, p.11].
Within the framework of linguistics, the meaning of a linguistic unit is studied on the basis of understanding the organic connection of language with non-linguistic reality, which is manifested in "the ability of language to reflect all the features of the functioning environment, the history of the carrier people, the peculiarities of its material and spiritual culture" [Tomakhin, 1984, p.6]. The communication process is based on the fact that the sender of the message and the perceiver of it have a common background knowledge. G.D. Tomakhin also made a significant contribution to the development of the problem under study and laid the foundations of comparative linguistics.
Comparative linguistics has a philological nature: familiarization with the culture of the country of the studied language is carried out through the study of linguistic units with national-cultural semantics. When comparing languages, national and cultural differences are observed at almost all levels, but especially vividly at the lexical and phraseological, therefore, the direct object of comparative linguistics is primarily vocabulary and phraseology. Representatives of this direction of studying the social conditionality of language focus their attention on the study of the meaning of the word. They proceed from the fact that a word is, first of all, a designation, a sign of one or another reality of reality, and therefore in its semantics it is possible to find and distinguish some "extralinguistic" content that directly and directly reflects the culture served by the language. Thus, it is through meaning that lexical units are connected with non-linguistic reality [Oshchepkova, 1995, p.17].
A further development of the linguistic and cultural understanding of the cultural specifics of linguistic units was the linguoculturological concept (Vorobyov 1991, 1994; Telia 1996; Shaklein 1998, etc.), which focuses on the methodological and linguistic aspects of the relationship between language and culture: "the systematic representation of the culture of a people in its language, in their dialectical interaction and development" [Vorobyov, 1993, p.45]. The purpose of this scientific direction is to investigate and describe the interaction of language and culture in national and universal forms in the current state or in certain synchronous sections [Telia, 1996, p.216]. Like linguistics, linguoculturology analyzes the semantics of lexical units to highlight culturally significant information.
Within the framework of this concept, the cultural marking of a lexical unit is considered as the presence in its semantic structure of cultural connotation, which is understood as "the interpretation of denotative or figuratively motivated, quasi-denotative aspects of meaning in cultural categories" [Telia, 1996, p.214]. The content of the national-cultural connotation is the correlation of linguistic meanings with a particular cultural code, which gives a culturally significant marking to the linguistic unit. Telia distinguishes two types of culturally marked units: the first type represents units in which culturally significant information is embodied in the denotative aspect of meaning (the realities of material, spiritual and social culture); the second type includes units carrying culturally significant information in the connotative aspect of meaning. This approach is consistent with the principles of cognitive science used in describing the semantics of a word, i.e. the denotative aspect of meaning is considered as a typical image of a class of objects and phenomena in the minds of native speakers.
The connotative aspect of meaning in this approach is the interpretation or addition of the denotative aspect with a variety of information: associative-background, empirical, cultural -historical or ideological character [Telia, 1996, p.107].
According to the researcher, the national-cultural (cultural-historical) connotation is the most important concept of linguoculturology [Ibid.]. Its content is a correlation of linguistic meanings with a particular cultural code, which is owned by representatives of a certain linguistic and cultural community [Telia, 1996, p.219]. Possession of the cultural code is the key to an adequate interpretation of the culturally significant information contained in the concept.
The conceptual information contained in the lexical meaning is the result of a detailed analysis of all available information about the designated objects and phenomena and the selection of the most significant for this language group.