Authors
- Alekseev Aleksandr Candidate of Philology, Assistant Professor
Annotation
The article deals with the cultural significance on the material of the history of the word trud. The cultural significance is determined by the ratio of the word with other cultural signs and formed in the process of symbolic semiosis words. Language mechanisms of formation of cultural significance are the internal form of a word, the lexical (semantic) diffusely, dual reference lexical character in context. The cultural connotation of the word trud is ifferent for different historical periods. Proto-Slavic cultural connotation of the word trud is primarily determined by the internal form of a word. This connotation identifies the life and physical sensations; human activity is realized via correlation with physical perceptions. The internal form of the word trud is formed by comparing the initial sign «to press» with a wide syncretic value «what is stopping, any difficulty, phenomena of physical, spiritual and social life». This syncretic is differentiated in written era in the old Russian language. The result is eleven independent values: «effort», «activity, work», «performance», «diligence, zeal», «care», «anxiety», «monastic work», «suffering», «sad feeling», «pain», «disease». Cultural connotation accompanies the value «monastic work». This is due to the wide spread in the ancient culture of the Orthodox ascetical exercises. Monastic exploit is spiritual development of the person to whom it is necessary to overcome the passions. Such overcoming is achieved heavy physical labor, physical suffering, overcome bodily discomfort and hardship. This cultural connotation is created by use in the context of the semantic markers of various types.
How to link insert
Alekseev, A. . (2014). THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD “TRUD” IN HISTORY OF RUSSIAN LANGUAGE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", # 9, 2014,
References
1.
Gvozdeczkaya N.Yu. K probleme vy’deleniya «imen chuvstv»
v yazy’ke drevnegermanskogo e’posa (na materiale «Beovul’fa» i «Starshej
E’ddy’») // Logicheskij analiz yazy’ka: Kul’turny’e koncepty’. M.: Nauka,
1991. S. 138–142.
2.
Kolesov V.V. Filosofiya russkogo slova. SPb.: Yuna, 2002. 444 s
3.
Losev A.F. Znak. Simvol. Mif: Trudy’ po yazy’koznaniyu. M.: Izd-vo
Mosk. un-ta, 1982. 479 s
4.
Slovar’ akademii Rossijskoj: v 6 t. SPb.: Izdanie Imperatorskoj
Akademii nauk’’, 1789–1794.
5.
Sreznevskij I.I. Materialy’ dlya slovarya drevne-russkago yazy’ka:
v 3 t. SPb.: Izdanie Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk’’, 1903–1912.
6.
Cherny’x P.Ya. Istoriko-e’timologicheskij slovar’ sovremennogo
russkogo yazy’ka: v 2 t. M.: Russkij yazy’k, 1993.
7.
Chertov L.F. Znakovost’: opy’t teoreticheskogo sinteza idej o znakovom
sposobe informacionnoj svyazi. SPb.: Izd-vo SPb. un-ta, 1993. 378 s.