Abstract: Problem of linguocultural types has been one of the important current directions of research. The article deals with the linguocultural types “father” (in Russian linguoculture) and “pastor” (in American linguoculture), their comparative consideration is conducted. Comparative consideration of linguo-cultural types “father” and “pastor” seems to be important for linguoculturology, linguoconcepology and general theory of discourse because it allows to add to the general theory of linguocultural types information about nationally specific types in Russian and American linguocultures. The relevance of the study can be explained, firstly, by the significance of the linguo-cultural types “father” and “pastor” for creation of a comprehensive picture of religious discourse, secondly, linguocultural types “father” and “pastor” are important not only in the sphere of a particular social institution – religious discourse – but have important place in national Russian and American linguocultures in general. It seems important to conduct comparative consideration of linguocultural types close in content and significance in different linguocultures in order to define their general characteristics and differences and, as a result to improve process of intercultural communication of the representatives of different linguocultures. The general notion for the linguocultural types under consideration is the notion “clergyman” which has general characteristics of the linguotypes considered. Comparative consideration of linguocultural types “father” and “pastor” was conducted according to such characteristics as appearance, age, gender, occupation, family, values. Study showed that linguocultural type is greatly influenced by national specifics of linguocultural type. The material was provided by samples of sermons, as well as guides to worship in Russian and English. To conduct the study methods of semantic, contextual, comparative analysis were used.
Keywords: religious discourse, semiotics, iconic space of discourse, linguocultural type, stereotype, value component, ideologem
For citation: Bobyreva E.V. Comparitive consideration of linguocultural types “father”: “pastor” in Russian and American linguocultures. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2020, no 3, pp. 55–63 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Ekaterina V. Bobyreva, Doctor of Philology, professor, Volgograd State Social Pedagogical University, English philology department, professor; Volgograd, Russian Federation.
E-mail: new_life@mail.ru
Address: 400066, Volgograd, 27 Lenin Ave. Volgograd State Social Pedagogical University
References:
1. Bulbenko ES. Objectification of concepts of “craze” and “cunning” in language consciousness and artistic communication: dis. …сand. Philol. Sciences. Volgograd, 2013:221. (In Russ.)
2. Karasik VI. Language keys. M., 2009. (In Russ.)
3. Lutovinova OV. “Linguistic cultural type” among related concepts used to study linguistic personality. Scientific notes of Transbaikal State University: Philology, History, Oriental Studies. 2009;3:225-228. (In Russ.).
4. Bulanov PG. Linguistic cultural type “uncle Tom” in the African-American discourse. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University. 2010;8:264-271. (In Russ.).
5. Bondarenko TV. Linguo-cultural type British butler: the conceptual component. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. 2008;8:152-155. (In Russ.).
6. Seliverstova LP. “Hollywood Star”: linguistic cultural type and stereotype. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. 2007;6:158-160. (In Russ.).
7. Bolotnova NS. Communicative style of the text: the ratio of the concepts of “idiostille” and “linguistic and cultural type”. Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2014;2(143):27-31. (In Russ.).
8. Dmitrieva OA. Linguo-cultural type from the position of cultural property. Bulletin of Volgograd State Pedagogical University. 2006;2:29-35. (In Russ.).
9. Karasik VI. Linguistic-cultural type: to the definition of the concept. Axiological linguistics: linguistic-cultural types. Collected papers. Volgograd, 2005:5-25. (In Russ.)
10. Derevyanskaya VV. Linguistic-cultural type “British colonial employee”: dis. …сand. Philol. Sciences Volgograd; 2008:22 (In Russ.). Available at: http://dlib.rsl.ru/01004020452. Accessed July 21, 2020. (In Russ.).
11. Bobyreva EV., Dmitrieva OA., Zheltukhina MR., Busygina MV. Principle of “Understanding” from Perspective of Linguistic Investigations. Proceedings of the 7th international scientific and practical conference “Cultural issues of linguistics and didactics: The interdisciplinary approach in humanities” (CILDIAH 2017): Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Researches, 2017;97:52-56. (In Russ.).
12. Dmitrieva OA. Linguistic cultural types of Russia and France of the XIX century. Volgograd, 2007. (In Russ.)
13. Bobyreva EV. Religious discourse: values, genres, strategies. Volgograd, 2007. (In Russ.).
14. Bobyreva EV., Zheltuhina MR., Dmitrieva OA., Busygina MV. Role and Place of Religious Consciousness in Culture Formation. The International Scientific and Practical Conference “Current Issues of Linguistics and Didactics: The Interdisciplinary Approach in Humanities and Social Sciences”. CILDIAH, 2018:56-61. (In Engl.).
15. Tameryan TYu., Zheltukhina MR., Sidorova IG., Shishkina EV. Stereotype component in the structure of ethnocultural archetype (on Internet-Blogs). The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. 2019;LVIII:1716-1722. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/ epsbs. Accessed June 30, 2020. (In Engl.).
16. Mechkovskaya NB. Semiotics: Language. Moscow, 2004. (In Russ.).
17. Efremova TF. Interpretive dictionary of vocabulary units of the Russian language. Moscow, 2005. (In Russ.).
18. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. N.Y., 1989. (In Engl.)
19. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford, 1995. (In Engl.).
20. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London, 1990. (In Engl.).
21. Tretyakova TP. On the linguistic interpretation of modern stereotypes. Bulletin of Leningrad State University named after A.S. Pushkin, 2015;1:201- 208. (In Russ.).
22. Slyshkin GG. Linguocultural concepts of precedent texts. Moscow, 2000. (In Russ.)