Mythological Concept as A Kind of Linguocultural Concept

Abstract

The mythological concept is considered in the work as a type of linguocultural concept, which is characterized by a three-part structure with a well-developed figurative, conceptual and mandatory value components.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Within the framework of the linguoculturological direction in cognitive linguistics, concepts are considered as components of the national linguistic culture, the structural and content characteristics of which are determined by a combination of cultural factors (national system of values, traditions, customs, peculiarities of the cultural and historical development of a particular ethnic group) and which are manifested by a set of linguistic means of different levels. An integral part of the national culture is the system of mythological representations of the ethnos, structured in the form of a national mythological concept sphere with mythological concepts (mythologems) included in it, verbalized by means of a special class of lexical units - mytholexemes.

II. MAIN PART

The mythological concept is a kind of linguocultural concept, which includes the figurative-perceptual, conceptual and value sides. The importance of the figurative component of the mythological concept is due to the peculiarities of mythological thinking as a type of visual-figurative thinking based on ritual [9, p. 15]. The main feature of thinking, according to M. Heidegger, is a representation in which “perception unfolds”, therefore, “the representation itself is a representation” [11, p. 144]. The mythological concept is also characterized by the obligatory presence of a value component in the structure *, the analysis of which is considered dominant in the study of cultural concepts [1, p. 75]. According to V.I. Shakhovsky, all cultural concepts are emotional (both national and universal). The evaluative component of the concepts reflects “the value of an emotionally reflected culture for a given linguistic community”, and the concept itself is thought of as “a storage chamber for the emotional memory of the people about the value of culture” [12, p. 10, 12]. The evaluative value of the mythological concept is determined by human activity in mastering reality. M.S. the kagan describes four forms in which human activity is realized: cognition of reality, its value comprehension, its transformation and communication of people in the process of their joint life and activities. In the process of artistic development of the world, these four forms merge together, forming an artistic image [2, p. 14]. Researchers of the myth emphasize the sensual and intellectual nature of the myth, which combines “comprehension of reality and the production of value meanings” [3, p. 14]. The mythological assimilation of reality “enriches a person's knowledge of the world around him, giving this knowledge an emotional and sensual coloring, thereby increasing the energy of reflection” [4, p. 92]. Accordingly, quasi-scientific mythologemes, according to V.M. Naydysh, embody not so much a person's knowledge of the world as his emotional and aesthetic state [6, p. 92].

In connection with the above, within the framework of this study, we propose a characteristic of the structural and meaningful features of the “bogel” mythological concept, which is part of the English mythological conceptual sphere, and the establishment of the features of isomorphism with the linguocultural concept. All three components of the linguocultural concept are present in the structure of the mythological concept “bogel”. The figurative component is constituted by the cognitive features “anthropomorphic appearance”, “zoomorphic appearance”, “appearance in the form of a natural phenomenon”. These cognitive signs are verbalized both in a fairy tale discourse and in lexicographic sources that describe in detail the appearance of the creature: cf. 'bogles are really the dead, still able to appear and to act, until the time their corpses are fully decade', 'a light, a ball of fire, a ghostly shape, a phantom hound or bull or calf, or red hen or black cock '[20, p. 29].

Simultaneously with the figurative characteristics in these examples, there is a manifestation of such conceptual signs as "spirit (incorporeal)", “Material embodiment”, “werewolf as a magical property”. The material embodiment of bogla is partly a consequence of the posthumous activity of the human soul, up to the complete decomposition of a dead body: Anyways, they told me there was a lad - granfer called him Sammle - as were burnt to death, all gone to ashes, and maybe cinders. But in a while he got up (the inside of him, I mean) and gave himself a shake, and thought what he mun do next ... Well, by and by something said to him: “Thou must go in the graveyard and tell the Big Worm thou's dead, and ask him to have thou eaten up, or else thou'll never rest in the mold ”[15, p. 223]; And all the creeping things and the crawling things took and turned Sammle out; and ever since, if he’s not found his nail, he’s walking about seeking for it. <...> That’s all. Granfer told me one day when I were asking where all the bogles come from (ibid., P. 225). However, to a much greater extent, this feature is expressed in the English-language fairytale discourse through actional verbs - designations of actions contextually related to self-harm (cut off, maim): ... one of them has his leg thrust out from under bed, so the lad brings his sword down and cuts it off. Then another thrusts his arm out at the other side of the bed, and the lad cuts that off. So at last he had maimed them all ... [14, p. 29].

The mode of movement of a supernatural being receives a discursive realization through the gl1 components "To move with all the recumbent body" / "to move on short legs" (crawl along the ground; monsters crept through the wasteland and through the villages; crawl along the edge of the bogs).

This cognitive feature integrates the idea of Bogle into the general system of ideas about the creatures of the otherworldly reality (compare the generalized naming of mythological characters creeping things, crawling things and the nominations of individual groups of creatures crawling horrors, creeping horrors). another figurative cognitive feature - “repulsive appearance” - is inextricably linked with the value component of the mythological concept, since it determines the main occupation of the mythological character (the sign “bogg scares a person”), assessed through the prism of the psychological effect produced on a person and the attitude of the creature to a person (signs of "terrifying" and "harmful"). the axiological component is fixed in the internal form of the basic nomination of the concept “bogle (boggle)” (cf. Welsh bwg, a goblin; bwgwl, a threat, bygylu, to threaten; bwgwth, to scare [21, p. 46]), in the semantic structure hyperonyms creatures of darkness, creatures of the night, in the semantic structure of epithets characterizing an unreal creature (cf. 'spine-chilling creatures' [20, p. 29];' evil goblins', 'the bogles on the Scottish Borders, though formidable , are virtuous creatures' [13, p. 32]; 'an evil or mischievous spirit' [18, p. 213]; 'a fright, diminutive of BUG' [22, p. 48]), and derived from noun bogle (to boggle - start with fright (formerly often of horses) [16, p. 45; 19, p. 104]; to start aside, swerve for fear [21, p. 46]). In the fairy tale discourse, predominantly negative evaluative signs are also manifested: These monsters crept ... causing harm to the folks who lived near the fens [18, p. 173]; Scratching at the doors of the bog folk, trying their latches and their windows, screaming out in the night so that no one could rest and the night was filled with fear and ter- ror (ibid., P. 174). The sharply negatively labeled cognitive features listed above correlate in the collective consciousness with archetypal structures, which embodied the initial reverential fear of an archaic person before the mysterious forces of nature, which subsequently transformed into a rejection of Chaos opposed to Order. This feature of the archaic mythological consciousness is preserved in the modern mass consciousness, manifesting itself in the form of an aggressive reaction to everything that does not fit into the existing state of affairs [5, p. 6].

Conclusion

The macrostructure and content of the concept \"bogel\" testify to a high degree of identity between the concepts that make up the mythological conceptual sphere and the concepts that structure the rest of the national conceptual sphere. Being in essence a linguocultural concept, the mythological concept is characterized by a three-part structure with a well-developed figurative and necessarily present value components. close integration of figurative, conceptual and value cognitive features is reflected in the structure of the meaning of lexical units nominating this concept. Being the bearer of not only subject-conceptual, but also connotative meaning (emotional, expressive, axiological, stylistic components), the lexeme manifests the result of the activity of various types of thinking (visual-figurative, logical) under the influence of national characteristics of culture (values, attitudes, rules , regulating behavior and way of life, traditions, customs, mythological beliefs, etc.). The significance of the value component in the studied mythological concept is confirmed by the presence of cognitive signs that are relevant for the collective consciousness of “evil” (much less often “virtuous”), “terrifying”, “frightens people” and “harmfulness”, actualized in the internal form the basic nomination of the concept and its derivatives, in the semantic structure of lexemes that make up the nominative field of the concept.

References

[1] ???????? ?.?. ?????????????-???????- ?????? ????????????? ???????????? ????????? ???????? MAGIC ? ???????????? ?????????????? // ???. ???????. ???. ???. ??-??. ???. «??????????- ???? ?????». 2006. ? 3. ?. 74 – 79. [2] ????? ?.?. ???????? ??? ??????????? ???- ??. ???. : ??????????, 1997. [3] ??????????? ?.?. ?????? ??????????????- ?? ?????????????? : ???????. ???. … ?-?? ?????. ????. ?., 2009. [4] ???????? ?.?. ??? ? ?????? ? ????????? ??- ???? ????????? // ?????. ?????. ???. ????. ???????? ? ????????. 2010. ?. 22. ? 2. ?. 89 – 95. [5] ??????? ?.?. ?????????????????? ? ??- ??????????????? ????????? ? ??????????? ??????- ?? : ???????. ???. … ????. ?????. ????. ?????, 2007. [6] ????????????? ?.?. ?????????????? ??- ??? ? ????????? ? ?????????? // ?????????? ? ????- ???????? ?????. ????????????? ? ?????????? ??- ???????? : ???. ????. ???. 7: ?????????????????. 1996. ? 1. ?. 75 – 93. [7] ????????? ?????????? ???????? : ??????. / ????. ? ???. ???. ?.?. ????????. ?. : ???-?? «???- ??»; ???. : Terra Fantastica, 2003. [8] ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? : ??. / ????. ??. ???????. ?.: ??????, 1987. [9] ?????? ?.?. ???????? ??????????????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ????????????? ??- ?????????? ??????? ???? : ???????. ???. … ?-?? ?????. ????. ?????????, 2002. [10] ?????? ?.?., ??????? ?.?. ??????????? ???????????. ?. : ???: ?????? – ?????, 2007. [11] ????????? ?. ??? ?????? ???????? // ???- ????? ?? ??????????? ??????. ?., 1991. ?. 134 – 145. [12] ????????? ?.?. ????????????? / ???- ?????? ??????????? ? ????????????? ???????- ????? (???? ?? ??????????????? ?????????) // ??????????????? ???????????. ???????? ???- ????? ????????? : ??. ????. ??. ????????? : ???- ????, 2002. ?. 3 – 10. [13] Briggs K.M. A Dictionary of Fairies: Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogeys and Other Supernatural Creatures // Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977. [14] Briggs K.M. A Sampler of British Folk-Tales. London & Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977. [15] Briggs K.M. British Folk-Tales and Leg- ends: A Sampler. London & N.Y.: Routledge Clas- sics, 2002. [16] Hoad T.F. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford, N.Y. : Oxford Universi- ty Press, 1996. [17] Jacobs J. More English Fairy Tales. Lon- don: David Nutt, 1894. URL : http : //www.sacred- texts.com/neu/eng/meft/index.htm (???? ?????????: 16.03.2004). [18] Keding D., Douglas A. English Folktales. Westport, London: Greenwood Publishing Inc., 2005. [19] The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology / ed. by C.T. Onions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. [20] Simpson J., Roud S. A Dictionary of English Folklore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [21] Skeat W.W. The Concise Dictionary of English Etymology. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd., 2007. [22] Thomson J. Etymons of English Words. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boid, Tweeddale-Court, 1826.

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Obidov Izzatjon Muhiddinovich. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.