| Article |
|---|
| Article name |
Some Features of the Buryat Traditional Conceptual Cosmology: Substantiality and Relativism as Characteristics of Culture |
| Authors |
Zhanaev A.T.Postgraduate Student ayur_zhanaev@mail.ru |
| Bibliographic description |
|
| Section |
|
| DOI |
|
| UDK |
811.512.31 |
| Article type |
|
| Annotation |
The paper attempts to provide some features of the conceptual structure of the Buryat ethnic
consciousness in a comparative perspective on the example of linguistic material. In European thinking,
the substance had characteristics of real essence, which allowed believing in the permanence and
stability of the physical and social world. In contrast, the Eastern world view is based on the principle
of communication and variability. In this world the essence has the meaning of movement, dynamics
and permanent formation. In this regard, as well as on the basis of linguistic analysis, the specific
characteristics of the Buryat concept are its dynamic nature and inability to conceptualize abstract
quality. According to the author, these features must be taken into account for further consideration
and interpretation of the linguistic material.
|
| Key words |
conceptual structures, the Buryat language, categorization, substantial and relative
worldviews. |
| Article information |
|
| References |
1. Darbeeva A. A. O substantivnom upotreblenii imjon prilagatel’nyh v burjatskom jazyke //
Filologija i istorija mongol’skih narodov. M.: Izd-vo vost. lit-ry, 1957. S. 152–165.
2. Dorzhigushaeva O. V. Jekologicheskaja jetika buddizma: ucheb. posobie. SPb., 2002. 62 s.
3. Kostjushkina G. M. Kategorizacija opyta vyskazyvanija // Lingvisticheskie paradigmy i lingvodidaktika:
materialy H Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. Irkutsk: Izd-vo BGUJeP, 2005. Ch. 1. S. 48–59.
4. Kubrjakova E. S. Konceptual’nyj analiz jazyka: sovremennye napravlenija issledovanija:
sb. nauch. tr. / RAN. In-t jazykoznanija; Min-vo obraz. i nauki RF. TGU im. G. R. Derzhavina. M.;
Kaluga: Jejdos, 2007. S. 7–19.
5. Morohoeva Z. P. Pogranich’e v perspektive Evro-Azii // Debaty IBI AL: Civilizacionnyj
vybor i pogranich’e. Varshava, 2011. T. 4. S. 11–37.
6. Serebrennikov B. A. Kak proishodit otrazhenie kartiny mira v jazyke? // Rol’ chelovecheskogo
faktora v jazyke. Jazyk i kartina mira. M., 1988. S. 87–107.
7. Shagdarov L. D. Buddijskaja leksicheskaja sistema v sovremennom burjatskom literaturnom
jazyke // Vestn. BNC SO RAN. 2011. № 3. C. 177–184.
8. Clark E. V. Languages and Representations // Language and Mind: Advances in the Study of
Language and Mind. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003. P. 3–15.
9. Fernald A., Morikawa H. Common themes and cultural variations in Japanese and American
mothers’ speech to infants // Child Development. Stanford, 1993. P. 637–656.
10. Gentner D. Some interesting differences between nouns and verbs // Cognition and Brain
theory. Massachusetts, 1981. P. 161–178.
11. Gentner D., Worfian W. Language and Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Mind.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2003. P. 3–15.
12. Grzegorczykowa R. Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego: słowotwórstwo opisowe. Warszawa, 1984.
13. Nisbett R. E. The Geography of Thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently …
and why? New York., 2003. 288 p.
14. Hall D. L., Ames R. T. Focusing the familiar: a translation and Philosophical interpretation
of the Zhongyong. University of Hawai’i Press. 167 p.
15. Wierzbicka A. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-
Specific Configurations. Oxford University Press, 1992. 496 p.
16. Zapaśnik S. “Walczący islam” w Azji Centralnej. Problem społeczny genezy zjawiska.
Wrocław: Wrocławska Drukarnia Naukowa PAN, 2006. 213 p. |
| Full article | Some Features of the Buryat Traditional Conceptual Cosmology: Substantiality and Relativism as Characteristics of Culture |
