Research on the conceptual fields "intelligence" and "stupidity" in English linguistic culture and their influence on intercultural communication

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

the article is dedicated to exploring the conceptual fields of "intelligence" and "stupidity" in English linguistic culture and their impact on intercultural communication. The relevance of the study is determined by the importance of considering culturally specific concepts when communicating between representatives of different linguistic cultures. The aim of the research is to identify the key components of the concepts "intelligence" and "stupidity" in the English language and determine their role in intercultural interaction. The study employed methods of conceptual analysis, associative experiments, and contextual analysis using materials from various types of discourse. The empirical basis consisted of survey data from 350 English native speakers and 500 usage contexts of the key lexemes. It was established that in English linguoculture, the concepts of "intelligence" and "stupidity" are closely tied to notions of efficiency, pragmatism, and social success. Significant discrepancies were identified between English and Russian conceptual fields, which may complicate intercultural communication. The results hold theoretical significance for cognitive linguistics and linguocultural studies, as well as practical value for optimizing cross-cultural interactions. Future perspectives involve studying the dynamics of these concepts in the context of globalization.

About the authors

T. D Magomadova

Grozny State Oil Technical University named after acad. M.D. Millionshchikov

Email: tay666@mail.ru

N. Yu Antonova

Volgograd State Medical University

Email: antonova7878@mail.ru

Yu. V Privalova

Southern Federal University

Email: privalovatyu@sfedu.ru

References

  1. Карасик В.И. Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. 477 с.
  2. Степанов Ю.С. Константы: Словарь русской культуры. М.: Академический проект, 2004. 992 с.
  3. Wierzbicka A. Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford University Press, 1997. 328 p.
  4. Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications, 2001. 616 p.
  5. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries // Advances in experimental social psychology. 1992. Vol. 25. P. 1 – 65.
  6. Triandis H.C. Individualism and collectivism. Routledge, 2018. 284 p.
  7. Ларина Т.В. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации: Сопоставление английских и русских лингвокультурных традиций. М.: Рукописные памятники Древней Руси, 2009. 512 с.
  8. Привалова И.В. Интеркультура и вербальный знак (лингвокогнитивные основы межкультурной коммуникации). М.: Гнозис, 2005. 472 с.
  9. Красных В.В. "Свой" среди "чужих": миф или реальность? М.: Гнозис, 2003. 375 с.
  10. Иванова С.В., Чанышева З.З. Лингвокультурология: проблемы, поиски, решения. Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2010. 366 с.
  11. Леонтович О.А. Русские и американцы: парадоксы межкультурного общения. М.: Гнозис, 2005. 352 с.
  12. Тер-Минасова С.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация. М.: Слово, 2000. 624 с.
  13. Goddard C., Wierzbicka A. Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. OUP Oxford, 2013. 314 p.
  14. Козлова Л.А. Этнокультурный потенциал залоговых форм и его дискурсная актуализация. М.: Флинта, 2019. 224 с.
  15. Прохоров Ю.Е., Стернин И.А. Русские: коммуникативное поведение. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2006. 328 с.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).