ҒТАМР 17.07.41 ҒТАМР 17.07.41
4. Лингвомәдениеттанулық фактор. Әр түрлі халықтардың арасындағы өзара байла- ныс нәтижесінде осы мәдениеттердің ақпараттық өрісін трансляциялайтын лингвомәдени
кеңістік қалыптасады. Ал осы ретте кірме лексемалар бір лингвомәдени қауымдастықтан екіншісіне және ол арқылы үшінші бір лингвомәдени қауымдастыққа этномәдени құн- дылықтарды тасымалдаушы рөлін атқарады;
5. Лингвоэкологиялық фактор. Тіл мәдениетін жетілдіру, төл тілде сөйлеу мәдени- етін арттыру және тілдің ұлттық табиғи қалпын сақтап қалу мақсатында шеттілдік лекси- калық бірліктерді жиі қолданудан саналы түрде бас тарту жағдаяттары кездеседі. Бұған Түркияда М.Ататүріктің кезінде Түрік тіл қоғамы тарапынан жүргізілген тілдегі араб-пар- сы кірме сөздерін түрік немесе түркі сөздерімен ауыстыру реформасы мен қазіргі таңда бірқатар тілдерде орын алып жатқан ұлттық терминжасам процесі дәлел бола алады.
Осы тарауда айтылған ой-тұжырымдарды қорыта келе, «тілдік контактілер» термині- не – «әр түрлі тілде сөйлейтін халықтар арасындағы мәдени-гуманитарлық, саяси-экономи- калық, әлеуметтік т.б. қарым-қатынастар нәтижесінде осы халықтар тілдерінің бір-бірімен өзара байланысқа түсуі»; «кірігу» ұғымына – «тілдік контакт нәтижесінде, сондай-ақ ғылы- ми-техникалық жаңалықтардың әлемге таралуы, ақпараттық коммуникацияның дамуына сәйкес халықтардың өзара қарым-қатынасынсыз-ақ бір тіл элементтерінің екінші тілге ті- келей немесе аралық тіл арқылы ену процесі»; ал «кірме сөздер» терминіне – «бір тілден екінші тілге еніп, толық немесе жартылай ассимиляцияланған лексикалық бірліктер» деген анықтама ұсынамыз.
Әдебиеттер тізімі
1 Досжан Г.А. Ағылшын бизнес лексемаларының түркі тілдеріндегі семантикасы мен праг- матикасы (қазақ және түрік тілдері бойынша): (PhD) -докторлық диссертация. / Г.А. Дос- жан – Астана, 2013. – 182 б.
2 Сағидолла Г.С. Түркі-моңғол тілдік байланысы: топонимия және фразеология. / Г.С. Сағи- долла – Астана: Сарыарқа, 2011. – 304 б.
3 Сәтенова С.К. Түркітанымдық ізденістердің жаңа бағыттары // Жалпы тіл білімі және түркі тілдерінің өзекті мәселелері: халықаралық ғыл.-теор. конф. материалдары. / С.К. Сә- тенова – Астана: Ш. Шаяхметов атындағы Тілдерді дамытудың республ. үйлестіру-әдісте- мелік орталығы, 2010. – 472 б.
4 Шаймердинова Н.Г. Репрезентация в языке древнетюркской картины мира. / Н.Г. Шай- мерденова – Астана: Арман-ПВ, 2009. – 242 с.
5 Benjamin L.W. Language Mind and reality. / L.W. Benjamin - Madras, 1942. - Vol. 63. - Р. 281-91.
6 Хауген Э. Процесс заимствования // Новое в лингвистике. / Э. Хауген - Москва: Прогресс, 1972. – Вып. 6. – С. 344-382.
7 Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества / сост. С.Г. Бочаров; примеч. С.С. Аверин- цев и С.Г. Бочаров. – Москва: Искусство, 1979. – 423 с
8 Швейцер А.Д., Никольский Л.Б. Введение в социолингвистику. / А.Д. Швайдер, Л.Б. Ни- кольский – Москва: Высшая школа, 1978. – С. 102-110.
9 Мейе А. Введение в сравнительное изучение индоевропейских языков. / А. Мейе – Мо- сква, 1938. – 471 с.
10 Vendryes J. Le Language, introduction linguistique à l’histoire. / J. Vendryes - Paris, 1921. - Р. 21.
11 Толстой Н.И. Опыт семантического анализа славянской географической терминологии:
автореф. ... докт. филол. наук. / Н.И. Тольстой - Ленинград: ЛГУ, 1972. – 27 с.
12 Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. / В.И. Карасик – Волгоград:
Перемена. – 2002. – 477 с.
13 Шаймерденова Н.Ж. Turco-Slavica в лингвистическом источниковедении // Turco-Slavica:
язык, этнос, культура в едином пространстве: колл. монография / Отв. ред. Н.Ж. Шаймерде- нова. – Петропавловск: Полиграфия, 2011. – 348 с.
14 Haugen E. The Ecology of language // Essays by Einar Haugen. / E. Yaugen – Standford:
Standford University Press, 1972. – 366 p.
15 Дүсіпбаева Қ.С. Лингвоэкология және кірме сөздер. // Тіл және руханият: өзекті мәселе- лер. / Қ.С. Дүсіпбаева – Астана: Ш.Шаяхметов атындағы Тілдерді дамытудың республика- лық үйлестіру-әдістемелік орталығы, 2010. – 560 б.
Гульжан Досжан
Евразийский национальный университет им. Л.Н. Гумилева, Нур-Султан, Казахстан
Интегративные подходы к изучению заимствованных слов
Аннотация. Учитывая интенсификацию взаимоотношений на основе международных кон- тактов, к одним из ключевых индикаторов, безусловно, относятся заимствованные слова. Словар- ный запас любого языка пополняется за счет собственных возможностей развития и способности воспринимать слова из других языков. Лексический фонд любого языка может быть эффективным только в том случае, если он изучается в связи с другими науками (этнологией, психологией, соци- ологией, культурологией и т. д.), связанными с формированием отраслевого терминологического слоя. Одна из наиболее важных тем в лингвистическом образовании, которую необходимо изучать в рамках интеграционного подхода - заимствованные слова. В статье определяются теоретические и методологические основы заимствованных лексем в соответствии с интегративными методами лингвистической контактологии (этнолингвистика, психолингвистика, социолингвистика, лингво- культурология, лингвоэкология).
Ключевые слова: лингвоконтактология, заимствованные слова, этнолингвистика, психо- лингвистика, социолингвистика, лингвокультурология, лингвоэкология
Gulzhan Doszhan
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan
Integrative Approaches to Studying Borrowed Words
Abstract. Taking into account the intensification of relationships based on international contacts, one of the key indicators, in fact, are borrowed words. On the other hand, the vocabulary of any language is distinguished by the ability to distinguish its abilities from the language, develop, grow in abundance and receive loan words from other languages.
The lexical fund of any language can be effective only if it is studied in correlation with other sciences (ethnology, psychology, sociology, culture studies, etc.) related to the formation of a specialized terminological layer. One of the most important topics in linguistic education, which must be studied in the framework of the integration approach, is borrowed words. In this paper the theoretical and methodological foundations of borrowed lexemes are comprehensively determined on the basis of theories of linguistic contactology in accordance with integrative methods (ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic culture studies, linguoecology) for the first time.
Key words: linguistic contactology, borrowed words, ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic culture studies, linguoecology.
References
1 Doszhan G.A. Agylshyn biznes leksemalarynyn turki tilderindegi semantikasy men pragmatïkasy (qazaq zhane turik tilderi boyınsha): (PhD) -doktorlyq dissertaciya [Semantics and pragmatics of English business lexemes in Turkic languages (on materials of Kazakh and Turkic languages):
PhD dissertation], (Astana, 2013, P. 182.). [in Kazakh]
2 Sagidolla G.S. Turki-mongol tildik bailanysy: toponimiya zhane frazeologiya [The relation of Turkic-mongol languages: toponymy and phraseology]. (Sariarka, Astana, 2011, 304 p.). [in Kazakh]
3 Satenova S.K. Turkitanymdyq izdenisterdin zhana bagyttary [New directions of Turkic study research], Zhalpy til bilimi zhane turki tilderinin ozekti maseleleri: xalyqaralyq gyl.-teor. konf.
materiyaldary [General linguistics and significant problems of Turkic languages: international scientific-theoretical conference materials], [Center of developing language and methods named Sh.Shaiahmetov, Astana, 2010, P. 472.). [in Kazakh]
4 Shaimerdinova N.G. Representation in language od old-turkic picture of the world. – Astana:
Arman-PV, 2009. – P.242.
5 Benjamin L.W. Language Mind and reality. (Madras, 1942, Vol. 63, Р. 281-91.).
6 Haugen E. Protsess zaimstvovaniya [Borrowings process], [New in linguistics], (Progress, Moscow, 1972, (6), P. 344–382.). [in Russian]
7 Bahteen М.М. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Esthetics Slovenian art], Sost. S.G. Bocharov;
primech. S.S. Averintsev i S.G. Bocharov [Made S.G. Bocharov. primech. S.S. Аverintsev, S.G.
Bocharov], (Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1979, 423 p.). [in Russian]
8 Shveitser A.D., Nikolski L.B. Vvedeniye v sotsiolingvistiku [Introduction to Sociolinguistics], Visshaya shkola, Moscow, 1978, P. 102-110.). [in Russian]
9 Meye A. Vvedeniye v sravnitel’noye izucheniye indoyevropeyskikh yazykov [Introduction to the Comparative Study of Indo-European Languages], (Мoscow, 1938, P. 471.). [in Russian]
10 Vendryes J. Le Language, introduction linguistique à l’histoire. (Paris, 1921, Р. 21.).
11 Tolstoy N.I. Opyt semanticheskogo analiza slavyanskoy geograficheskoy terminologii: avtoref.
dokt. filol. nauk [Experience of semantic analysis of slavyan geographical terminology: abstract.
Doct of Philol.science], (LGU, Leningrad, 1972, P. 27.). [in Russian]
12 Каrasik V.I. YAzykovoy krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: identity, concepts, discourse], (Peremena, Volgograd, 2002, 477 p.). [in Russian]
13 Shaimerdenova N.Zh. Turco-Slavica v lingvisticheskom istochnikovedenii [Turco-Slavica in linguistic source study], Turco-Slavica: yazyk, etnos, kul’tura v yedinom prostranstve:
koll. monografiya [ Turco-Slavica: language, ethnos, culture in unit environment: collect.of monography], Otv. red. N.ZH. Shaymerdenova [Resp. Red. N.Zh. Shaimerdenova], (Poligrafia, Petropavlovsk, 2011, 348 p.). [in Russian]
14 Haugen E. The Ecology of language // Essays by Einar Haugen. (Standford University Press, Standford, 1972, 366 p.).
15 Dusipbaeva K.S. Lingvoekologiya zhane kirme sozder [Lingvoecology and borrowings], Til zhane ruchaniyat: ozekti maseleler [Language and spirituality: actual issues], (Center of developing language and methods named Sh.Shaiahmetov, Astana, 2010, 560 p.). [in Kazakh]
Автор туралы мәлімет:
Досжан Гүлжан – Шетел тілдерінің теориясы мен тәжірибесі кафедрасының доценті, PhD докторы, Л.Н. Гумилев атындағы Еуразия ұлттық университеті, Қажымұқан Мұңайтпасов көш. 11, Нұр-Сұлтан, Қазақстан.
Doszhan Gulzhan – PhD, associated professor of Theory and practice of foreign languages department. L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Munaitpasov, 11, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan.
МРНТИ 16.31.41
Ilmira Yerbulatova1, Talgat Salimov2
Zhangir Khan West Kazakhstan Agrarian Technical University, Uralsk, Kazakhstan (E-mail: 1 [email protected], 2 [email protected])
Culture-Marked Units of the Lexical-Semantic Field “Food”
Abstract. The article represents and analyzes names of the national and cultural realities of the Kazakh language belonging to the lexical and semantic field «FOOD». Analysis of the names of national dishes of the Kazakh cuisine allowed dividing lexical units according to their thematic feature as well as studying the origin of the names and determining their percentage.
In the course of the work, three main thematic groups of the analyzed field were identified (names of dairy and cheese products, names of meat and sausage products and names of flour products). The results of the research led to the conclusion that the explication of the semantics of national and cultural realities ensures their adequate perception and preservation of the role of the intercultural component of the lexical units under consideration in the process of interaction of languages and cultures. The results of the research led to the conclusion that the explication of the semantics of national and cultural realities ensures their adequate perception and preservation of the role of the intercultural component of the lexical units under consideration in the process of interaction of languages and cultures.
Thus, in the center of our attention there was culture-marked vocabulary, expressed by national and cultural realities, which contains background information and thereby reflects the culture of the people and provides mutual understanding between speakers of different languages.
Keywords: culture-marked vocabulary, lexical-semantic field, realia, language and culture, national-historical color, intercultural component, intercultural communication.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-678X-2019-129-4-119-124 Nowadays the problem of the interaction of language and culture is one of the relevant subjects. The issues of correlation and comparison of languages and cultures concerned such linguists like G.D.Tomahin, V.S.Vinogradov, E.M.Vereshchagin, S.Vlakhov and others [1].
G.D.Tomahin argues that when comparing languages and cultures, elements are identified that are both coincident and non-coincident. Being a component of culture, the language as a whole refers to the mismatching elements. If more original languages are compared and fewer cultural contacts are happened in their history, then they have less in common, and they more differ in general and element-wise. Mismatched elements primarily include the objects denoted by equivalent vocabulary, and connotations inherent in words in one language and missing or different in words of another language.
Literary scholars and literary translation specialists note that the national setting of a literary work is often expressed through national realia. The closer the work is in its theme to folk life, and in style - to folklore, the brighter is its national flavor. In order to preserve the national color of the work of reality, including onomastic (toponyms and anthroponyms), when translated into another language, as a rule, they are not translated, but transliterated (Jeep- джип, drugstore- драг-стор, jeans- джинсы, blazer- блейзер, pullover- пуловер, Watergate- уотергейт, Mickey Mouse- Микки-Mayс), because they belong to the category of “untranslatable in translation” [2].
They are realia (names of national clothes, jewelry, dishes, etc.) that help to not only understand the language, and, consequently, the thinking of representatives of a foreign culture, but also translate foreign language texts.
In our study, we consider the national-cultural realities of the lexical-semantic field
«FOOD» in the Kazakh language. The process of food ingestion is able to display not only the social and cultural state of a single person, but also the national character of the entire people.
The texts written by the authors of cookbooks and the works of philosophers, culturologists,
ethnoculturologists, historians, ethnographers contain information about the socio-cultural and historical components that make it possible to identify not only linguistic, but also extralinguistic features of the lexical-semantic field “FOOD” [3, p. 86–91].
Kazakh cuisine is considered young among the countries of the former USSR, since it had begun to take shape only in the late XIX - early XX centuries and this tradition of cooking had taken its shape when the transition of Kazakhs from nomadic lifestyle to a sedentary one had completed and the economy of Kazakhstan had radically changed. Kazakh people throughout their history since the formation of the nationality at the beginning of the XVI century on the basis of the Turkic-speaking tribes and up to the state-territorial design of Kazakhstan in 1925 were, essentially, nomadic people. The main and only type of subsistence farming was nomadic cattle breeding, in which sheep and herd horse breeding (as well as camel husbandry) predominated, cattle breeding, which became known to the Kazakhs only at the end of the 17th century, played a smaller role. [4].
Three main economic and cultural types characteristic of the territory of their settlement based on the results of scientific studies of the economy and lifestyle of the Kazakhs of the late XIX - early XX centuries can be distinguished: 1) the nomadic population of the steppes engaged in mobile cattle breeding; 2) a semi-sedentary population, combining cattle breeding with agriculture; 3) the sedentary population of oases, leading intensive agriculture [5, p. 33].
The presence of farming and cattle breeding in the Kazakh economy and the prevalence of the latter in the vast steppe territory largely determined the nature and characteristics of Kazakh cuisine, which is the most stable element of the national culture of the people. The cuisine of the Kazakh people is distinguished by the special specificity of the products, and, accordingly, their names. The names of these units (in our case, dishes) belong to the national characteristics of the Kazakh culture and form groups of realities that do not have correspondences in other cultures and equivalents when translated into other languages.
The extensive and extremely one-sided type of economy, on the one hand, and the underdevelopment of social and economic relations, exacerbated by the insulating effect of the vast steppe spaces on which the relatively few Kazakh people were scattered, on the other, caused the unilateralism of food raw materials among Kazakhs for a long time [4].
All Kazakh cuisine for a long period was based on the use of meat and milk. Horse meat and mutton, mare, sheep, cow and camel milk and products of their processing (early-ripening curd cheeses, koumiss) - this is a very limited and, most importantly, monotonous assortment of products that Kazakhs could use. Of course, the ethnic cuisine of the Kazakhs was significantly enriched in Soviet times and continues to develop due to the cultural exchange of other peoples, a well-developed catering network, and progress in various sectors of the food industry [4].
The study included only those names of dishes that can be considered traditionally ethnic in origin, stay in long-term use and prevalence within the Kazakh people themselves. We had identified 53 lexical units, which were divided into three main thematic groups.
1. Names of meat products. This group consists of 12 lexemes, which is 23% of the total number of units of the lexical-semantic field “FOOD”: such ones as – qazy – sausage product, which is rib part of horse carcass cooked together with abdominal fat; qarta – non-fat puff from the intestines of goodies; shǔjyq –sausage made of domestic horse fat with chopped meat; zhal- zhaya – a specialty delicacy made from individual pieces of horsemeat; kuyrdak – stewed roast from finely chopped pieces of fillet, lungs, liver, heart, kidneys; et (also named as- in the western Kazakhstan), which is commonly called “Kazakh meat” in the European environment, is now often called beshbarmaq – the elite dish of ethnic Kazakhs prepared from selected pieces of mutton with fat tail, sometimes with the addition of iǹkál – thinly rolled unleavened dough made from durum wheat flour with the addition of eggs and chopped into large squares, cooked in meat broth.
The names of most meat dishes are not associated with the composition of the raw material
or the method of preparation, but with the name of the parts into which, in accordance with national traditions, the horse carcass is usually cut. They are: a qabyrĝa – a rib, a tόstik – a brisket, a bas – a ram’s head, prepared for the most respected guest, a jambas – a rump, pelvic bone of a ram, horses with adjacent meat, boiled exclusively for the honored guest, beldeme – fillet of animal carcass and so on.