Concepts from the Point of Culture and Historical Development View

Ayna Turaeva

, Tamerlan Usmanov

and Eliza Arsalieva

Chechen State University Named After A.A. Kadyrova, Grozny, Russian Federation

Chechen State Pedagogical University, Grozny, Russian Federation

Keywords: Concept, Homeland, Culture, History, Russia, UK.

Abstract: The model of the world for any culture is usually built of the number of universal concepts and cultural

constants. This article uses the approach to the concepts as some phenomena that reflect the national linguistic

picture of the world. The concept “homeland” in Russian and in English is used as an object of analyses. It is

assumed that due to the difference in cultural values and historical development the emotional coloring of this

concept (despite its universality) will be different for different countries. The Hofstede scale of cultural

dimensions was used as an analysis tool. The research materials were the publications on conceptology are

used as the research material.

1 INTRODUCTION

The conceptual field of culture studies is formed in a

specific way: the term in cultural discourse

in most cases is not “pure”. Culturological research is

forced to deal with the problematization of the usual

conceptual apparatus, an appeal to the “scientific

archive”, that is, to the history of the formation of

concepts, to the boundaries of conventions within

which terminology is formed.

A modern researcher must imagine the history of

the formation of concepts and ideas, the context of the

formation of their “dictionary” meanings, the modern

functioning in various discourses. The language of

the cultural sciences closely interacts with ordinary

language (and the scientist himself is included in the

living tradition of the language), with public

discourses - political, economic, administrative. The

scientific space, which is a space of power, is

structured not only by scientific problems, but also by

authorities, institutions that legitimize their presence,

including through terminological innovations or, on

the contrary, conceptual conservatism. This is how

the concepts of the humanities (not only cultural

studies) are formed - concepts “burdened” with a

complex interweaving of meanings and internal

relationships.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9017-5143

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0181-5300

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-699X

The study of the concept sphere of cultural

studies, therefore, is an attempt to find out the features

of the formation of problem fields, where different

methodologies collide, theories are built, phenomena

are studied.

It s a fact that people thinks in a way of concepts.

Concepts participate in different relationships and

form a system of interdependent mental images.

The most important component of the national

linguistic picture of the world in any culture is the

concept of “homeland”. Through this concept it is

possible to trace the one’s attitude towards society

and the place of residence as well as historical and

cultural development in certain country

(Svorobovich, 2019).

As the concept “homeland” has a high

universality and is familiar for representatives of any

culture, it is one of the most interesting key concepts

of culture (Esmurzaeva, 2008).

The hypothesis of this study is the assumption that

the concepts “homeland” would have different

emotional colouring in different countries.

Turaeva, A., Usmanov, T. and Arsalieva, E.

Concepts From the Point of Culture and Historical Development View.

DOI: 10.5220/0011602400003577

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Actual Issues of Linguistics, Linguodidactics and Intercultural Communication (TLLIC 2022), pages 65-68

ISBN: 978-989-758-655-2

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

2 RESEARCH METHODS

The Hofstede scale of cultural dimensions was used

as an analysis tool. The research materials were The

publications on conceptology are used as the research

material.

Concept analysis is an apology for cultural

studies, both theoretical and practical, which we have

tried to show in this monograph. The book opens with

articles that set the tone for the process of

conceptualization itself. After all, if there is a concept,

there must be a procedure, moreover, inscribed in the

methodological field of cultural science. This

procedure is based on the analysis of multiplicity, to

which the works of J. Deleuze and F. Guattari refer.

The modern paradigm of culture is a paradigm of

difference, it is built on the basis of the postulate not

of identity, but of difference and multiplicity,

individuality of cultural phenomena. And the concept

turns out to be the tool that is adequately able to

capture the essence of individuality as such. The

concept is arranged as a cipher, a code, which means

that the conceptualization procedure is a guessing-

guessing of this code, for-or de-encryption. Each

concept refers to different scientific problems,

appeals to a variety of ideas and images, it turns out

to be in the center of possible fields of

conceptualization. Moreover, these fields, once

encrypted, become a polygon of an infinite number of

decryptions, allowing, moreover, provoking, a

plurality of interpretations, each of which is true. This

is how – provocatively, problematically – the concept

sphere is arranged. Having carried out the

demarcation, we are faced with the need to

comprehend the concepts, in their conjugation with

each other. The concept has a formation, and given

the infinity of interpretations, this formation has no

end. Concepts make complex art objects of the

intellectual space out of problems and possible

solutions, breaking the established discourse, eluding

propositions, arising from concepts, and revealing the

insufficiency of things and phenomena in themselves.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Exploring the concepts implemented in texts in a

particular language, we can hypothetically identify

the concepts that exist in a given usage, combine them

into groups, which are hypothetically assigned the

status of the most direct and adequate implementation

of concepts. The history of the use of the term concept

in different linguistic areas demonstrates the

preservation of the original motivation, the metaphor

that originally lay in the image - the idea of

“rudimentary truth”. This metaphor, as N. Yu.

Shvedova (Uzunalova, 2020) rightly points out, is

preserved in the interpretation in which concepts are

considered as “embryos” of mental operations, “buds

of the most complex inflorescences of mental

concreteness” (Andreeva, 2017). Unlike the words of

ordinary language, this term carries with it the initial

motivation as an indispensable attribute of the

terminological culture. The professional community

is guided by this motivation when it decides which

term and in what context is better, and which is worse.

Concepts are realized in concepts. Continuing the

image proposed by Askoldov, we can say: if the

concepts are carefully watered, abundant concepts

will grow out of them. And in other cultures, some

concepts can wither, giving place to others, more

tenacious or more carefully watered. In some soils,

certain concepts may never come up. When the

concept “accepted” and “ascended”, we observe the

concepts implemented in speech. But on what

material of texts do we have the right to rely,

revealing the “germination” of concepts? The purely

quantitative side does not help: texts about justice,

about beauty, etc. can all turn out to be too “adult”

(“non-naive”) and / or hypocritical. So, the proverb of

Belobrysa is a rat, and the black one is beautiful does

not mean at all that Russians love exclusively dark-

skinned girls: blondes also enjoy well-deserved

popular love among us. And this second opinion is

confirmed by the stable phrases clear-faced, clear-

faced beauty. Orientation to “setting” texts, such as

commandments, from which consequences are

sometimes drawn about the concept of justice and

equality of people, does not help either. So, for a

member of a criminal gang, the concept of “justice”,

if it exists, is unlikely to be in the same

implementation (in the same concept - and the

underworld, as you know, “lives by concepts”), as for

Robin Hood (Bolotskaya). The practical answer to the

last question is given by lexicographic practice. The

concept underlying the concept has its own potential,

it is able to differentiate: dictionaries show an

elementary reflection of this ability as a tendency to

form various verbal shades and transfers.

In order to confirm or refute the proposed

assumption, let us compare, for example, the cultural

values of the representatives of Great Britain and

Russia using such a universal tool as the Hofstede

scale of cultural dimenssions (Hofstede Insights,

https://www.hofstede-insights.com). As we can see,

the “Power Distance” indicator in the UK is much

lower (35%) than in Russia (93%), which means that

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

representatives of Russia would show more

ceremonial attitude towards the “homeland”, while

for the UK representatives it will be more “familiar”

attitude.

The “Individualism” score for the UK (89%) is

more than double higher than in case of Russia and

that means that Russian representatives consider

“motherland” as “our motherland” and Great Britain

representatives - as “my motherland”.

The Masculinity indicator, which is about twice as

high for the UK (66%) vs Russia (36%), indicates a

greater restraint in the manifestation of feelings by the

Britishpeople compared to Russians. It can be applied

also to the “homeland” concept.

The uncertainty avoidance indicator for Russians

(95%) is three times higher than for representatives of

the UK (35%), which indicates that representatives of

Russia try to follow generally accepted rules, which

makes love for the motherland in a certain sense

pragmatic than in the case of representatives of the

UK, who treat their homeland less pragmatically

(Hofstede Insights,\ https://www.hofstede-

insights.com).

The Long-Term Orientation indicator for Russia

(81%) is also higher than for the UK (51%), which is

consonant with the previously considered indicator

and, in our opinion, has the same explanation.

The indicator of indulgence for Russian culture

(20%), in contrast to British culture (69%), is very

low, which indicates the readiness of representatives

of our country to make self-sacrifices, including for

the Motherland.

Thus, it becomes clear that the emotional

colouring of the “homeland” concept for the world’s

linguistic picture of British people and Russian

people, are different.

Indeed, the English word “homeland” is

completely neutral in emotional colouring, while the

Russian word “Родина” (homeland) is associated

with patriotism and respect and starts with capital

letter to underline this respect (Dzhabrailova, 2018).

It is important also to mention that the Russian-

language “Родина” (motherland) corresponds to

several English versions of this word: “mother land”,

“native land”, “home”, “homeland”. There are such

popular in UK sayings as “return home” and

“homesickness” (Uzunalova, 2020).

In addition, it is more typical for English-speakers

to use the concept “one’s country”, which, on the one

hand, is broader than the Russian-language “Родина”

(homeland), and on the other hand, it is devoid of

additional, peripheral meanings.

Due to the specific (as was also shown by means

of Hofstede cultural dimensions scale), restraint in the

manifestation of feelings and emotions, the most

often used by UK authors concept to describe their

native land is “one’s country” (Andreeva, 2017).

According to the research made by V.N. Telia,

S.G. Vorkacheva, I. Sandomirskaya, the Russian

concept of “Родина”(homeland) is a relational

concept: it must contain the relation parameter. The

relational concept “homeland” is covered by the

subject-object relation, because representing an

object - the homeland is always someone's

(Dzhabrailova, 2018).

Also, relationality is indicated by the results of

research made by another author, who indicates that

the most common bigram, including the word

“Родина” (homeland) in Russian, is “наша

Родина”(our homeland), which to a certain extent

indicates the collectivist type of culture of Russian

society, which is also confirmed by the Hofstede

scale. The expression “our homeland” is found in

Russian literature more often than “his/her

homeland” or “my homeland” (Uzunalova, 2020).

At the same time, Russian people in comparing to

UK representatives used to separate the “homeland”

meaning in a way of homeland as a “state” and

homeland in a way of “motherland”. For UK

representatives such separation would sound,

probably as a nonsense as according to the Power

Distance Hofstede dimension, the approach of UK

people to the homeland is “warmer” and much more

familiar (home -sweet - home) (Andreeva, 2017).

Similar conclusions were made in other

investigated research works. It is shown that in

Russian language there are two concepts used to

designate the topic of this question. The first is

“Отчизна” (Fatherland), derived from the Russian

“отец

” (father) and thus the direct equivalent of the

Latin “partia” (a noun referring to something cognate

with father(s), although this noun has a neutral

gender). The second one is “motherland”, a feminine

noun derived from “to give birth” (to be born),

making it closer to the English word “Родина”

(Motherland) (Bolotskaya).

Another important finding is made in the study of

T. I. Kolabinova. The researcher analyzes the concept

of “Motherland” and “Fatherland” based on famous

Russian writer M. A. Sholokhov's novel “Quiet Flows

the Don” (Kolabinova, 2011). It is proved that at the

time when the action of the novel takes place (the

period of revolution dramatical changes in 1920-

1940) the concept “Fatherland” separated from the

concept “Motherland” as the first was meant “faith

and the tsar” (“For Faith, the Tsar and the

Fatherland”) but the second one started to associate

Concepts From the Point of Culture and Historical Development View

with the USSR and Stalin (“For motherland for

Stalin”).

4 CONCLUSIONS

“A frontal study of modern common Russian

vocabulary and its presentation in the Russian

Semantic Dictionary as a natural multi-level system

showed that the central place in this system is

occupied by lexical classes that combine units (words

and phraseological units) that name a person, himself,

his life , his body, physical condition, mind, feeling,

will, his abilities and capabilities, behavior and

actions, labor and products of labor, occupations,

pastime, contacts and relationships with each other.

In their composition, quantitatively, these classes are

many times superior to the classes of words that name

the realities of living and inanimate nature, objects

that are not related to labor and products of human

activity. But it's not just about quantity. Classes of

words relating to the person himself, to his life in all

its diverse manifestations, demonstrate their constant

openness, firstly, for the most diverse replenishment

(and, accordingly, losses) and, secondly, for no less

diverse assessments and qualifications. In addition

(and this is very important), the relations and

connections between these classes are completely

different than the relations and connections between

classes of words that name realities that are not

directly related to human life and people's attitudes to

these realities. In the first case, such connections

sometimes turn out to be so close and complex that

determining the place of a word in a particular class

turns out to be difficult, conditional; compare, for

example, vocabulary related to the spheres of thought

and emotions, will and feelings, behaviors and

contacts (Kolabinova, 2011). Those “worlds”

(spheres), in the bosom of which a person's life takes

place, are presented by the language itself as the

environment of a person, as that organic and natural

environment in which he exists and acts.

REFERENCES

Svorobovich, R. V., 2019. Interpretation of the concept

"Motherland" in Russian and English in the aspect of

translation. Linguistic personality and translation:

Proceedings of the IV International Scientific and

Educational Forum for Young Translators. p. 208-212.

Esmurzaeva, Zh. B., 2008. The concept “Native land” (in

Russian and English languages) in the system of

valuable concepts of the language picture of the world.

Almanac of Modern Science and Education. 8 (15). p.

53-55.

Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/

Dzhabrailova, M. M., Ovkhadov, M. R., 2018. The concept

“Motherland” in the Russian, English, and French

paremics. pp. 515-518.

Uzunalova, A. E., Borlakova, Z. E., 2020. Linguocultural

analysis of the concepts of “patriotism” and

“homeland” in the Russian, English and Nenets

languages. pp. 415-419.

Andreeva, A., 2017. The concepts “freedom”, “justice”,

“law”, “homeland” in the worldview of Russians and

Americans. pp. 11-14.

Bolotskaya, E. A., Concepts “Motherland” and

“Fatherland” in the Russian, English and German

language picture of the world: a comparative analysis.

pp. 212-216.

Kolabinova, T. I., 2011. The representation of the concept

“Motherland” in the novel of M.A. Sholokhov “The

Quiet Don” and in Russian conceptosphere. 2 (24). pp.

180-183.

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"