Substandard forms in a language and text: cognitive aspects

About the authors:

Daria E. Ertner, Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Associate Professor, Department of English Philology and Translation Studies, University of Tyumen; eLibrary AuthorID, d.e.ertner@utmn.ru

Olga B. Klevtsova,

Abstract:

The article deals with the laws of functioning and possible interpretations of substandard language forms in linguistic and literary discourse. Substandard language forms, as part of everyday life, create specific mechanisms that determine the nature of thought and speech, encode perception of the world. In this regard, we consider substandard language forms (linguistic units belonging to a low speech register) as a multimodal mechanism of culture. Based on this premise, substandard language cultural code in speech and a literary text (on the basis of the Russian translation of Robert Burns’ poetry) is interpreted at different hierarchical levels of the language system. The survey of actual material showed that the compilation of linguistic units belonging to different stylistic registers creates an author’s individual style and can capture the spirit of an era and the uniqueness of a particular culture. Substandard language forms are based on the semantization of human reality; they create a common cultural code, involving the synthesis of concepts: substandard language forms as a linguistic rudiment and substandard language forms as expressive means. Due to their expressive nature, substandard language forms are an integral part of a language, enriching its communication system, encouraging the development of a language and cultural contexts.

References:

1. D'jachok, M.T. Russian colloquial language as a sociolinguistic phenomenon. Gumanitarnye nauki — Humanities, No. 21. Мoscow, 2003. P. 102-113 (in Russian).

2. Jertner, E.N. Geocultural approach to researching the spatial imagery of Russian literature. Vestnik Tjumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tyumen State University Herald. 2011. No. 1. Philology. P. 6-13 (in Russian).

3. Petrov, V.V. Metaphor: from semantic conception to cognitive analysis. Voprosy jazykoznanija — Linguistic Inquiries. 1990. No. 3. Pp. 135-146 (in Russian).

4. Lakoff, G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by. London: University of Chicago Press,

2003. 276 p.

5. Bel'chikov Ju.A. Colloquial expressions. Lingvisticheskij jenciklopedicheskij slovar' —

Linguistic Encyclopaedical dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia publ., 1990. 402 p.

(in Russian)

6. Klevtsova, O.B. Historical principle in reconstruction of mental structures. Vestnik Tjumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tyumen State University Herald. 2006.

No. 8. P. 210-213 (in Russian).

7. Lotman, Ju.M. Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. Saint-Petersburg, 2000. 704 p. (in Russian)

8. Lotman, Ju.M. Istorija i tipologija russkoj kul'tury [History and Typology of Russian Culture]. Saint-Petersburg, 2002. 768 p. (in Russian)

9. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Ju. Tolkovyj slovar' russkogo jazyka [Dictionary of the Russian Language] / Russian Academy of Science. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute. Мoscow: Azbukovnik publ., 1999. 944 p. (in Russian)

10. Thomas, J. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman,

1995. 224 p.

11. Ertner, D.E. Metaphorical code of R.Burns’ poetry: to the problem of metaphorical concepts’ interpretation. Vestnik Tjumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tyumen State University Herald. 2011. No. 1. Philology. P. 120-125 (in Russian).

12. Burns, R. Sobranie pojeticheskih proizvedenij [The Collection of Poetry]. Мoscow: RIPOL Classic Publ., 1999. 704 p. (in Russian)