Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. «нога», лтш. «kāja», лит. «koja»

TATJANA STOIKOVA Ventspils University College Research areas: comparative Slavic and Baltic phraseology, the linguistic worldview, lexicography, artistic speech (Russian), language contacts (Russian and the Baltic languages). UNIVERSAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE HUMAN BEING AND THE WORLD IN THE SEMANTICS OF SOMATIC PHRASEOLOGISMS WITH THE COMPONENT RUS. НОГА, LAT. KĀJA, LITH. KOJA1 Universal ideas of the human being and the world in the semantics of somatic phraseologisms with the component Rus. нога, Latv. kāja, Lith. koja ANNOTATION Based on a comparative analysis, the article examines Russian and Baltic conceptions of the human being and the world, captured in the semantics of phraseologisms with the somatism нога in Russian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. The research findings show that these cultural conceptions, first, encompass various aspects of human existence (physical and emotional states, character, behavior, evaluative attitudes toward the world, etc.), as well as the principal categories of the organization of the world (space and its organization, time and its characteristics); 1 The research was carried out with the support of a grant from the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Education Exchanges Support Foundation), 2015. 40 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. нога, лтш. kāja, лит. koja second, they are universal for Russians and Balts. The identity of these conceptions is обусловлена by the large number of full interlingual equivalents. Interlingual equivalent phraseologisms form not only synonymic but also antonymic series. In turn, the antonymy of the phraseologisms under consideration reveals the binary principle of representing the world in consciousness and language. KEYWORDS: comparative phraseology; phraseological semantics; linguistic worldview; Latvian, Lithuanian, and Russian languages. ANNOTATION Based on the comparative-typological analysis, the article considers the ideas of Russians and Balts about the person and the world imprinted in the semantics of phraseological units with the somatizm foot in the Russian, Latvian and Lithuanian languages. The results of the research show that these cultural ideas of the world and the person first cover different aspects of the person’s life (physical and emotional states, character, behaviour, the relation to the world and so on) as well as the main categories of the world (space and its organization, time, movement, etc.); secondly, a considerable part of these representations is universal for Russians and Balts. The majority of these universal ideas about the person and the world are structured by a certain set of universal oppositions into which fit equivalent Russian and Baltic somatic phraseological units. KEYWORDS: comparative phraseology, phraseological semantics, language picture of the world, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian languages. 0. INTRODUCTION This article presents an attempt at a comparative-typological study of somatic phraseology in closely related (Baltic) and genetically related (Baltic and Russian) languages. The material was drawn from phraseological and explanatory dictionaries of modern standard Russian, Latvian, and Lithuanian (ФСРЛЯ 1997; ФСРА 1994; KLFV 1974; LLVV 1972–1996; LFV 2000; LKŽ 1962; RLKFŽ 1985; FŽ 2001). Developing a theory of phraseological universals is an актуальная task of comparative phraseology, whose foundations were laid in the 1980s of the XX century (Мокиенко 1980; Райхштейн 1982; Straipsniai / Articles 41 TATJANA STOIKOVA Добровольский et al. 1990), a relatively new discipline, but one actively developing in contemporary linguistics of the XXI century. Phraseologisms with a somatic component, or somatic phraseologisms (hereinafter SPs), are extremely привлекательный material for typological research when comparing several languages in order to identify phraseological universals: somatisms, constituting the most ancient strata of the vocabulary of any language, are characterized by high frequency of use, vivid imagery, semantic elasticity, openness to semantic transformations, and SPs occupy first place in the phraseological systems of all known languages in terms of quantity—“15–25 percent of the entire phraseological inventory” (Райхштейн 1982: 104). It has long been noted that “a characteristic feature of somatic phraseology is the presence in languages of numerous” full or partial equivalents (Куницкая et al. 1989: 53), coinciding or closely corresponding in structure and imagery. Such correspondences between SPs in different languages are explained not only, and not so much, by borrowings as by common закономерности that lead to the formation of equivalent SPs (ibid.). In this case, we can speak of mutually обусловленные linguistic and extralinguistic закономерности in the formation of SPs. Intralinguistic закономерности are associated with the identical nature of the reinterpretation of the semantics of equivalent prototypes containing somatisms—through metaphorization or metonymization, mechanisms that are universal. However, the selection of prototypes is motivated by extralinguistic закономерности. These закономерности include the identical way in which different peoples perceive the world and the human being, обусловленный прежде всего by universal categories and principles of the organization of the world and by the universal organization of the human being, his physiology and psyche. Therefore, in different languages, equivalent SPs developed in parallel on the basis of the reinterpretation of equivalent prototypes with somatisms. Of course, borrowings of SPs cannot be исключены in a number of cases. However, in order to distinguish borrowings from SPs that developed in parallel, a special study is necessary. This does not fall within our task. The aim of the article is, on the basis of an analysis of SPs using the comparative-typological method, to identify conceptions of the human being and the world common to Russians and Baltic peoples, reflected in the semantics of SPs with the component noga—Rus. noga, Latv. kaja, Lith. koja. It should be noted that SPs (their semantics and structure) with the component noga in Russian and other languages (Romance, Germanic, Finno-Ugric) 42 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. нога, лтш. kāja, лит. koja are the subject of a number of studies, including comparative ones (Тимeа 1999; Городецкая 2007; Лапшина 2011 and others). A recent study is devoted to the comparison of SPs with somatic components, including noga, in Russian and Baltic, as well as Germanic, languages; it presents a typology of the expression of quantity in semantic models of SPs (Ruškys 2005: 70–83). This article examines how SPs with the component noga in Russian and Baltic languages structure and describe the world and the human being as part of it. The degree of universality of conceptions of the world captured in the semantics of the analyzed group of SPs is determined by various factors, but probably also by the number of SPs equivalent in semantics, structure, and imagery. Before proceeding to a comparative analysis of SPs, the following preliminary remarks are necessary. SPs are one of the linguistic “instruments” of the somatic code of culture. The basic concept of the code of culture in ethnolinguistics and linguoculturology is defined as a “grid” that culture “throws over” the surrounding world, segments, categorizes, structures, and evaluates it. Codes of culture “encode” archetypal human conceptions of the world (Красных 2002: 232), being realized in sign systems, primarily in language. The somatic code is considered the most ancient of the existing codes of culture and underlies the most ancient way in which human beings comprehend the world, in which the point of departure in mastering and understanding the world is the human being himself, his body (and individual body parts): “human beings began to comprehend the surrounding world by learning about themselves,” and “through self-awareness, human beings came to describe the world, extrapolating their knowledge of themselves” onto the world around them (ibid.: 233–234). Besides the fact that every linguistic worldview is structured through codes of culture recorded in the semantics of linguistic units, its description is based on “binary oppositions” (Руднев 2001: 50): principles of describing the world necessarily rely on binarism. The world is binary, and binarism, as a form of reflecting the world in consciousness and language and, consequently, as a universal way of knowing the world, manifests itself in antonymy as a lexical-phraseological universal. In analyzing the structuring and description of the world and the human being in the semantics of the phraseosemantic group under consideration—through the prism of the somatic code of culture—we noted that a significant part of SPs forms antonymic series. Interlingual equivalents that fully coincide in semantics, structure, and imagery are treated as interlingual synonyms. Incomplete coincidence in structure and imagery signifies partial equivalence of the SPs being compared. Straipsniai / Articles 43 TATJANA STOIKOVA 1. CONCEPTIONS OF THE HUMAN BEING IN THE SEMANTICS OF SPs WITH THE COMPONENT RUS. НОГА, LAT. KĀJA, LITH. KOJA It has been observed that in phrase formation the two most productive lexical-semantic variants of the polysemantic word нога are 1) ‘a part of the human body, a lower limb’, and 2) ‘the base, the lower part of something’ (Лапшина 2011: http://www.referun.com/n),, especially the first. Indeed, SPs with the component нога, formed, as a rule, through metaphorization (less often metonymization) of the prototype, are for the most part anthropocentrically oriented and participate in describing the human being—his material and spiritual existence; physical, mental, and emotional state; behavior and ethical actions; and character traits. The different aspects of human existence captured in the semantics of SPs with the component нога in Russian and Baltic languages are considered below, often in oppositions (i.e., taking into account the binary nature of the worldview)—in cases of basic states of human existence, such as “life–death,” “wakefulness–sleep,” “movement–rest,” and others. Physical states of the human being Life–death. The semantic pole ‘death’ is represented by several series of interlingual equivalents; cf., for example, full equivalents: Rus. одной ногой в могиле = Latv. ar vienu kāju kapā = Lith. viena koja grabe; Rus. протянуть ноги = Latv. atsliept / notirīnāt kājas = Lith. kojas īstiesti; Rus. вынести вперёд ногами = Latv. iznest ar kājām pa priekšu—a partial equivalent of Lith. kojas atsukti į duris. The phraseologisms that “fill” the oppositions presented below are semantically linked to the pole “life.” Wakefulness–sleep. Full interlingual equivalents meaning ‘to be awake’ are Latv. būt kājās (būt uz kājām) = Lith. būti ant kojų = Rus. быть на ногах; also Latv. sacelt kājas (‘to wake up, begin to be awake’) is contrasted with, for example, the non-equivalent antonym Rus. спать без задних ног. Health–ill health (illness, weakness). Equivalent interlingual synonyms with the general meaning ‘to be healthy, recover’ are Rus. быть на ногах = Latv. būt uz kājām = Lith. būti ant kojų; also partial equivalents with the general meaning ‘to help recover, cure’: Rus. поставить на ноги—Latv. dabūt uz kājām have antonymic 44 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. нога, лтш. kāja, лит. koja interlingual full correspondences: Rus. едва держаться / стоять на ногах (from weakness and illness) = Latv. tikко (ar pūlēm) turēties uz kājām = Lith. vos ant kojų laikytis / pastovėti. Fatigue–vigorous activity. The general meaning ‘(severe) physical fatigue, a state of (complete) exhaustion’ is conveyed by numerous SPs—several series of full interlingual equivalents; cf.: Rus. быть / остаться без ног (‘to become extremely tired, exhausted’) = Latv. būt / palikt kā bez kāju; būt / palikt vai bez kājām = Lith. be kojų palikti; Rus. валиться с ног (‘to be completely exhausted from fatigue’) = Latv. krist / gāsties no kājām = Lith. nuo kojų nupulti / kristi; also with the same meaning Rus. едва волочить ноги = Latv. tikko kājas vilkt / pavilkt = Lith. vos kojas pavilkti (cf. partial equivalent Lith. eiti, kojas velkant); Rus. ног под собой не чувствовать / не слышать (one of the meanings of the polysemous SP ‘to become very tired from walking or running’) = Latv. nejust vairs kājas [sev apakšā] = Lith. kojų nejaučiant [po savimi]; Rus. отбить все ноги—Lith. kojas atkul­ti; Rus. сбиться с ног (‘to become very tired from worries, bustle, and running around’) = Lith. nuo kojų nusivar yti—a partial structural equivalent of Latv. noskrieties vai bez kājām. Movement (fast / slow)–rest. The pole “movement” is semantically connected with the pole “vigorous activity” of the preceding opposition. The main functions of the leg—to serve as a means of locomotion and to ensure physical movement and displacement in space—are motivated by the basic meaning of the somatism нога, ‘one of the two lower limbs of the human being’. There is a large number of interlingual equivalent SPs with the following general meanings: 1) ‘to go quickly, run, dash away, flee’; 2) ‘to go slowly, move’. Cf. SPs united in synonymic series by the first meaning: Rus. идти / бежать, куда ноги несут = Latv. iet / skriet ko [kur] kājas nes = Lith. kur kojos neša (cf. Lith. eiti kaip kojos neša; Lith. eiti kur kojos veda); Rus. на одной ноге (‘to dash somewhere quickly, do something’) = Lith. ant vienos kojos būti; Rus. давай бог ноги = Lith. dieve duok kojas; Latv. dot kājām vaļu = Lith. duoti valią kojomis; cf. also partial (functional-semantic) equivalents: Rus. взять ноги в руки—Latv. ņemt kājas pār pleciem (Latv. kājas pār pleciem – un prom)—Lith. į kojas pakurti; Rus. со всех ног (бежать) = Lith. kiek kojos įkabina and others. The second meaning ‘to go slowly, move’ is expressed by the following interlingual synonyms: Rus. нога за ногу = Lith. koja už kojos (cf. also structural variants Lith. koja pro koją; koja kojon). The state of rest, opposed to movement, is represented rarely—for example, in the semantics of equivalent antonyms to the above SPs (with the first and second meanings): Rus. лежать в ногах = Latv. gulēt pie kājām = Lith. gulėti prie kojų. Straipsniai / Articles 45 TATJANA STOIKOVA SPs with the somatism нога participate not only in describing the physical states of the human being but also in describing his mental and emotional states, social behavior, evaluative attitude toward the world and other people, personal qualities and character, and even material standard of living. The human being’s inner and emotional states Full equivalents with component variation characterize a person’s mood—bad, gloomy, capricious: Rus. встать с левой [не с той] ноги = Latv. izkāpis (no gultas) ar kreiso kāju = Lith. kaire / ne ta koja iš lovos išlipti / atsikelti. Here we would like to draw attention to the common symbolic meaning of the component левый: if “the right side of the body corresponds to light and objectivity,” then “the left corresponds to darkness and subjectivity” (Шейнина 2006: 175). Moreover, according to omens, everything located on the left comes from the evil one (Никитина et al. 2009: 426). Obviously, the negative connotation of the component левый is characteristic of all three linguistic worldviews and constitutes the content of the common cultural connotation of these SPs, reflecting associations common to Russian and Baltic linguocultures. A state of shock and fear is expressed by the meanings of SPs—full equivalents: Rus. ноги подкосились / отнялись = Lith. kojas pakirto / atėmė (Lith. atimti / pakirsti kojas). The state of inner unfreedom and dependence is conveyed by the semantics of the following equivalent SPs: Rus. связывать по рукам и ногам = Latv. saistīt rokas un kājas = Lith. surišti rankas ir kojas—and is contrasted with a state of external freedom and an unconstrained life; cf.: Latv. uz brīvām kājām = Lith. laisva / valna koja. Personal qualities and character of the human being A large number of equivalent SPs describing the human being and indicating character qualities were formed through the metaphorical reinterpretation of prototypical word combinations with the word нога in its figurative meaning—‘a support, the lower end of something, for example, furniture, mechanisms, etc.’ Human independence. Various aspects of this quality are conveyed by full equivalents, cf.: Rus. поставить на ноги (‘to make independent, help become independent’) = Latv. nostādīt uz kājām = Lith. pastatyti ant kojų; pakelti ant kojų; Rus. держаться на ногах = Latv. turēties / noturēties uz kājām (‘to be able to exist independently in a difficult situation’) = Lith. ant kojų laikytis; Rus. встать на ноги (‘to become materially 46 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. нога, лтш. kāja, лит. koja independent’) = Lith. stotis / atsistoti ant (savų) kojų = Latv. nostāties uz (savām) kājām (cf. also Latv. tikt uz savām kājām (‘to overcome difficulties and misfortunes, achieve well-being and prosperity’); Rus. стоять на своих ногах (‘to be independent, autonomous’) = Latv. stāvēt uz savām kājām = Lith. savo kojomis stovėti; the polysemous SP Rus. стоять обеими ногами (1) ‘to have a solid, reliable foundation in life’; 2) ‘to be a realist, act in accordance with real possibilities’) = Latv. stāvēt ar abām kājām uz zemes = Lith. remtis / stovėti abiem kojomis. Cf. the antonym of the first meaning of the last series of equivalents—Lith. stovėti kaip ant vištos kojos. A person’s evaluative attitude toward the world A person’s evaluative, emotionally evaluative attitude toward the world, toward something or someone, manifests itself in 1) verbal and 2) nonverbal behavior. Thus, verbal emotionally evaluative attitude is expressed, for example, by equivalent gestural SPs meaning ‘to insult someone verbally, stigmatize someone’: Latv. tīđāt / mīt / bradāt kājām = Lith. mindžioti kojomis; paminti po kojomis (cf. also Latv. mīt ar kājām dvēsele ‘to trample with one’s feet in the soul’). Other equivalent gestural SPs: Rus. положить / бросить к ногам (‘to express respect, admiration, love’) = Latv. nolikt pie kājām = Lith. padėti po kojų—describe a positive emotionally evaluative attitude toward someone, manifested in nonverbal behavior. Social behavior of the human being Many interlingual equivalent SPs report behavior, actions, and deeds of the human being that are negatively evaluated; cf., for example: Rus. путаться / вертеться под ногами (‘to interfere with one’s presence in doing something; distract’) = Latv. rīties / maisīties pa kājām = Lith. painiotis po kojomis; Rus. целовать ноги кому-либо (‘to thank someone while humiliating oneself’) = Latv. bučot kājas = Lith. bučiuoti kojas; Rus. лизать ноги кому-либо (‘to abase oneself before someone by fawning’) = Lith. laižyti kojas. The following functionally semantic equivalents, structurally different, also contain a negative evaluation of social behavior; cf.: Rus. левой ногой сделать что-л. (‘to perform work or do something poorly, carelessly, haphazardly’)—Lith. kur / kam koja, kur / kam ranka. (On the semantics of the symbol левый, see above.) Equivalent gestural phraseologisms characterizing human behavior: Rus. броситься / падать в ноги [к ногам] (‘to implore, ask someone for something’) = Latv. nomesties / nokrist pie kājām = Lith. į kojas pulti—develop a negative or positive evaluation depending on the context of the particular situation. Straipsniai / Articles 47 TATJANA STOIKOVA The material well-being of the human being Very rare Russian and Baltic SPs with the component нога describe a rich, luxurious life; cf. for example, the equivalents: Rus. на широкую ногу (жить) = Lith. ant didžios kojos; Rus. на барскую ногу = Lith. ant poniškos kojos. 2. CONCEPTIONS OF THE WORLD REFLECTED IN THE SEMANTICS OF SPs WITH THE COMPONENT RUS. НОГА, LAT. KĀJA, LITH. KOJA Space and time (the chronotope) form the coordinates of our three-dimensional material world. The basic property of matter, as is known, is movement. Human beings acquired their first knowledge of the world, its categories and properties, above all through bodily experience: the human body has since ancient times been, in philosophical terms, the measure of all things, which is reflected in language, in particular in somatic phraseology. The basic categories of the world, its properties and qualities, have also been captured in the semantics of the analyzed group of SPs. Opposed qualities of the world are often represented in binary oppositions—phraseological antonyms. Space and time (the chronotope) Disorder (chaos)–order (the world, the cosmos). The world is order, in contrast to chaos, from which the world originated. And “at the dawn of humanity, the way of comprehending the world consisted in ordering,” while this “movement toward order” surpassed chaos (Ковшова 2013: 151–152). The semantic pole “disorder” is described by equivalent SPs: Rus. вверх ногами = Latv. ar kājām uz augšu / gaisā = Lith. aukštyn kojomis; Rus. перевернуть все вверх ногами = Latv. apgriezt visu (pasaule) ar kājām augšū = Lith. apversti aukštyn kojomis (cf. also the non-equivalent Rus. черт ногу сломит). Presence of a foundation–absence of a foundation. This opposition may be considered in interaction with the opposition “order–disorder” presented above: presence of a foundation = order–absence of a foundation = chaos. Cf. interlingual equivalents with the general meaning ‘loss of the vital foundation, support, stability’: Rus. почва / земля колеблется под ногами = Latv. zeme līgojas zem kājām = Lith. žemė slysta iš po kojų (also cf. Rus. почва / земля уходит из-под ног; терять почву под ногами)—and 48 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Универсальные представления о человеке и мире в семантике соматических фразеологизмов с компонентом рус. нога, лтш. kāja, лит. koja the Latvian phraseologism with the opposite, antonymic, semantics ramats zem kājām ‘to have a secure, stable position’. Top–bottom; near–far; one’s own–foreign; open–closed; dynamic–static. It is known that the words мир and пространство are synonyms. The following key archetypal oppositions structuring the world, or the space, around the human being include “top–bottom,” “near–far,” “one’s own–foreign,” “open–closed,” “dynamic–static,” and some others. Knowledge and understanding of space were first recorded through the bodily code of culture, which is undoubtedly closely connected with the spatial and temporal codes. Thus, the spatial opposition “top–bottom” is described metonymically by body parts, cf.: Rus. с головы до ног = Latv. no galvas līdz kājām = Lith. nuo kojų iki galvos. This is the minimal space occupied by a human being. The human being’s immediate, or personal, space is also designated by other equivalent SPs: Rus. лежать / находиться в ногах = Latv. gulēt pie kājām = Lith. gulėti prie kojų. The human being mastered space in the direction from “near” to “far”; cf.: Rus. одной ногой здесь, другой там = Latv. ar vienu kāju [kaut kur], ar otro [citur]; Latv. ar vienu kāju [kaut kur]. The gradual освоение by the human being of the surrounding world expanded the boundaries of the world, yet there always remained “foreign” space opposed to “one’s own” (cf. “one’s own”: Rus. в ногах = Lith. gale kojų = Latv. pie kājām [gulēt]). “Foreign” space is indicated by equivalent SPs with variation of the verbal component: Rus. нога не ступала (‘where no one has been; of remote, wild, uninhabited places’) = Lith. nė koja nepastovėjo; and also Lith. nė kojos nebuvo. Space and time can be separated only conditionally. Many SPs with the general meaning ‘to go / run / move quickly or slowly’ (see above) characterize both space and time, because movement is a category realized in the unified space-time (chronotope). For example, Rus. идти / бежать, куда ноги несут = Latv. iet / skriet kur kājas nes = Lith. eiti kur kojos neša, like some other equivalent series, emphasize “open,” unbounded, “dynamic” space—in the direction from “near” to “far”. Fast–slow. Movement is characterized through the concept of speed. Rus. давай бог ноги = Lith. dieve diek kojas—these and the other synonymic interlingual equivalents cited above, as well as SPs antonymic to them, for example, Rus. нога за ногу = Lith. koja už kojos, characterize movement as manifested in unified space-time. Short–long. Other prototypical word combinations, antonymic in semantics, developed into equivalent SPs with the synonymic Straipsniai / Articles 49 TATJANA STOIKOVA meaning ‘to drop in somewhere for a short time, to be somewhere for a short time’; cf.: Latv. apsildīt kājas—Lith. nespeti kojų sušilti. 3. CONCLUSION Just as the whole is reflected in the separate, and the large in the small, so in the semantics of one group of somatic phraseological units with the component leg in Russian and the Baltic languages (Russian leg, Latvian kāja, Lithuanian koja), examined from a comparative-typological perspective, universal principles of the organization of the world and the human being are recorded. The identity of the fragment of the worldview of Russians and Balts is обусловлена, along with other factors, by the large number of full equivalents (interlingual synonyms) and partial equivalents. Interlingual equivalent somatic phraseological units are often arranged not only into synonymous but also into antonymic series. In the antonymy of the somatic phraseological units under consideration, in turn, the binary principle of representing the world in consciousness and language is manifested. Notions of the human being and the world in which the human being lives are, in many cases, structured by a specific set of universal oppositions into which interlingual equivalent somatic phraseological units “fit.” A B B R E V I A T I O N S lit. – Lithuanian Latv. – Latvian Russ. – Russian SPU – somatic phraseological units 50 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Universal notions of the human being and the world in the semantics of somatic phraseological units with the component Russ. leg, Latv. kāja, Lith. koja ЛИТЕРАТУРА Городецкая Ирина 2007: Фразеологизмы-соматизмы в русском и французском языках. Автореф. дисс.... канд. филол. наук. Пятигорск. Доступно: http://www. dissercat.com/content (Обращение: 15.12.15). Дмитрий О. Добровольский, В.Т. Малыгин, Л.Б. Коканина 1990: Сопоставительная фразеология (на материале германских языков). Владимир: ВГПИ. Ковшова Мария Л. 2013: Лингвокультурологический метод во фразеологии: Коды культуры. Москва: Книжный дом «ЛИБРОКОМ». Красных Виктория В. 2002: Этнопсихолингвистика и лингвокультурология. Москва: ИТДГК «Гнозис». Куницкая и др. – Куницкая Н.В., Мельник В.Ф., Данилов Б.С. 1989: Функционально-семантическая динамика соматических лексем в составе фразеологических единиц. – Дериватология и динамика в романских и германских языках. Кишинев: Штиинца, 48–55. Лапшина Светлана С. 2011: Особенности словообразовательно-фразеологического комплекса с полисемантом нога в современном русском языке. Автореф. дисс.... канд. филол. наук. Москва. Доступно: http://www.referun.com/n (Обращение: 22.12.15). Никитина и др. – Никитина Татьяна Г., Рогалева Елена И., Иванова Надежда Н. 2009: Большой словарь примет. Москва: АСТ: Астрель. Райхштейн Александр Д. 1982: К сравнительно-типологической характеристике фразеологических систем. – Исследования по сопоставительной типологии языков. Москва: МГПИ, 102–113. Руднев Вадим П. 2001: Энциклопедический словарь культуры XX века. Москва: Агаф. Тимеа Чэтэ 1999: Соматические фразеологизмы в русском и венгерском языках. Автореф. дисс.... канд. филол. наук. Москва. Доступно: http://www.dissercat.com/content (Обращение: 14.12.15). Шейннина Елена Я. 2006: Энциклопедия символов. Москва: АСТ; Харьков: Торсинг. Ruškys Algirdas 2005: Kiekuybės reikšmės frazeologizmų, vartojamų kai kuriose baltų, slavų ir germanų kalbose, funkcinė ir semantinė tipologija. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti 9. Liepāja: LU, 70–83. Straipsniai / Articles 51 TATJANA STOIKOVA СЛОВАРИ ФСРЛЯ – Федоров Александр И. Фразеологический словарь русского литературного языка. В 2-х томах. Москва: Цитадель, 1997. ФСРЯ – Молотков Александр И. (ed.). Фразеологический словарь русского языка, Санкт-Петербург: Вариант, 1994. KLFV – Bauga A., Jostsone A., Tjurina L. Krievu–latviešu frazeoloģiskā vārdnīca. Русско–латышский фразеологический словарь. 2. sēj. Rīga: Liesma, 1974. LFV – Laua Alise, Ezėriņa Aija, Veinberga Silvija. Latviešu frazeoloģijas vārdnīca. Rīga: Avots, 2000. LKŽ – Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 6. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1962. LLVV – Ceplītis L. (ed.). Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca. 1.–8. Rīga: Zinātne, 1972–1996. RLKFŽ – Stašaitienė Vilija, Paulauskas Jonas. Rusų–lietuvių kalbų frazeologijos žodynas. Русско–литовский фразеологический словарь. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1985. FŽ – Frazeologijos žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2001. Universalios žmogaus ir pasaulio idėjos somatinių frazeologizmų su dėmeniu ru. носа, la. kāja, lie. koja semantikoje SANTRAUKA Remiantis lyginamąja tipologine analize, straipsnyje aptariamos rusų ir baltų idėjos apie žmonių ir pasaulį, užfiksuotos frazeologizmų su somatizmu koja semantikoje rusų, latvių ir lietuvių kalbose. Somatiniai frazeologizmai, kaip vienas iš seniausių žodyno sluoksnių bei somatinio kultūros kodo „įrankių“, atspindi archajiškus žmonių vaizdinius. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidžia, kad, pirmiausia, šie kultūriniai vaizdiniai apima įvairius žmogaus gyvenimo aspektus (fizinę ir emocinę būseną, charakterį, elgesį, santykį su pasauliu ir pan.), taip pat ir pagrindines pasaulio sandaros kategorijas (erdvę ir jos organizavimą, laiką, judesį ir pan.). Antra, nemaža šių vaizdinių dalis yra bendra tiek rusams, tiek baltams. Kartu su 52 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXIV Universaliėsios predstavymai apie žmogų ir pasaulį semantike somatinių frazeologizmų c komponentu rus. ноsa, ltš. kāja, lit. koja kitais veiksniais, rusų ir baltų idėjų apie žmogų ir pasaulį (ar pasaulio vaizdo fragmentą) tapatumo rezultatas – daug visiškų somatinių frazeologizmų atitikmenų. Daugumą šių universalių idėjų apie žmogų ir pasaulį sudaro tam tikra universalių priešybių grupė, kurioje telpa tapatūs somatiniai rusų ir baltų kalbų frazeologizmai. Frazeologizmai sudaro tiek antonimų, tiek sinonimų eiles. Analizuojamų frazeologizmų antonimų atveju atskleidžiamas dvinaris pasaulio „organizavimo“ principas bei pasaulio atspindys sąmonėje ir kalboje. Taigi žmogaus idėjos remiasi priešybėmis: „gyvenimas – mirtis“, „budrumas – sapnas“, „sveikata – liga“, „nuovargis – energingas veikimas“, „judesys – poilsis“ ir pan. Pavyzdžiui, priešybių poroje „sveikata – liga“ kelioms kalboms būdingi tapatūs sinonimai su bendrąja reikšme „būti sveikam, pasveikti“ – ru. быть на ногах = la. būt uz kājām = lie. būti ant kojų – turi antonimus: ru. едва держаться / стоять на ногах (ot слабости и болезни) – la. tikko (ar pulēm) turēties uz kājām = lie. vos ant kojų laikytis / pastovėti. Žmogaus gyvenamo pasaulio idėjos suformuoja šias priešybes: „viršus – apačia“, „šis – svetimas“, „arti – toli“, „atviras – uždaras“ ir pan. Plg.: „šis“ („arti“) erdvė: ru. лежать в ногах = la. gulēt pie kājām = lie. gulėti prie kojų – kaip priešprieša „svetimas“ („toli“) erdvei – ru. нога не ступала = lie. nė koja nepastovėjo. Įteikta 2016 m. vasario 21 d. T A T J A N A S T O I K O V A Maskavas 198 – 22, Rīga LV – 1019, Latvia [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 53