Linguo-cultural studies of phraseologisms in Russia: past and present

2.1 Linguo-cultural studies of multi-word units in the 18^th – 19^th centuries

In Russia the exploration of cultural aspects of phraseology can be traced, at least, as far back as to the 18^th century.

Being one of the compilers of the “Slovar’ Akademii Rossiyskoy” (“Dictionary of Russia's Academy”, the first explanatory dictionary of Russian published in 1789–1794) Mikhail V. Lomonosov, an outstanding Russian scientist, pointed out that the Russian language was abundant with special language items, which could be termed as ‘phrasises’ or ‘idiomatisms’. These items, according to Lomonosov, were of particular importance due to their immediate connection with the Russian culture and life experience of the Russian people as well as the mode of specific – Russian – perception of the world. Many of such ‘idiomatisms’ were registered and explained in the dictionary in question, for example: зазвонноŭ колоколъ (lit. thebell calling for church (or the church-going bell); ~ thesmallest bell which is the first to start ringing) ‘a person who speaks very much in a loud voice and usually interrupts others’; звез∂а злоЩаmсmная (lit. a star of bad luck) ‘used to say about a person who has bad luck’ (SАR, vol. 3, 1792: columns 28, 32).

It is noteworthy that the 18^th century was a rather relevant stage in the history of phraseology in a broad sense (i.e. including not only word-like but also sentence-like constructions). Due to the ever-growing interest in phraseology as a peculiar culture-dependent layer of the Russian language a few special collections of fixed phrases (mainly proverbs) were published. For instance, Anton A. Barsov's “Collection of 4291 ancient Russian proverbs” came out in 1770. The book contained various types of folklore set-expressions of didactic or prescriptive character that encoded and conveyed moral values and peculiarities of worldview of the Russian people, e.g. Берeƨuсь оm бе∂, nока uх неm (lit. Protect yourself from troubles while there are no troubles); Глаза человеку неnрuяmелu (lit. Eyes are not man's friends) (Barsov 1770).

In the 19^th century, Russian scholars’ attention to multi-word items of various kinds increased significantly. Fixed phrases and sentences of the Russian language as well as of other foreign languages were in focus of many large-scope works. The issues concerning the link of prefabricated language units with culture, various cultural sources of their origin were addressed in a series of specialized lexicographic editions, monographic and paper publications of a number of prominent Russian scholars in the fields of ethnography, history and philology, for instance:

• Aleksandr Rikhter (1794–1826): “Dva opyta v slovesnosti. Rassuzhdenie o russkikh poslovitsakh” (1816).

• Dmitrij Knyazhevich (1788–1844): “Polnoe sobranie russkikh poslovits i pogovorok, raspolozhennoe po azbuchnomu poryadku, s prisovokupleniem tablitsy soderzhaniya onykh dlya udobneyshego priiskaniya” (1822).

• Ivan Snegirev (1793–1868): “Russkie v svoikh poslovitsakh. Rassuzhdeniya i issledovaniya ob otechestvennykh poslovitsakh i pogovorkakh” (1831–34); “Russkie narodnye poslovitsy i pritchi” (1848).

• Vladimir Dal’ (1801–1872): “Poslovitsy russkogo naroda” (1861/62).

• Izmail Sreznevsky (1812–1880): “Mysli ob istorii russkogo yazyka” (1849); “Zamechaniya ob obrazovanii slov iz vyrazheniy” (1873).

• Pavel Rybnikov (1831–1885): “Byt russkogo naroda v ego poslovitsakh” (1859).

• Fedor Buslaev (1818–1897): “Istoricheskie ocherki russkoy narodnoy slovesnosti i iskusstva” (1861).

• Morits Mikhel'son (1825–1908): “Khodyachie i metkie slova” (1892, reprint in 1896); “Russkaya mysl’ i rech’: Svoe i chuzhoe: Opyt russkoy frazeologii: Sbornik obraznykh slov i inoskazaniy” (1903–1904).

• Sergej Maksimov (1831–1901): “Krylatye slova” (1890, reprint in 1899).

• Aleksander Potebnya (1835–1891): “Mysl’ i yazyk” (1862); “Iz lektsiy po teorii slovesnosti. Basnya. Poslovitsa. Pogovorka” (1896) and many others.

In most cases, the works of the given period offered different typologies of phraseologisms (mainly proverbs and sayings) with regard to corresponding cultural domains which gave rise to their emergence and considered semantic variations of phraseological units when used in discourse. Special attention was paid to the issues concerning the influence of sociocultural evolution of Russia as well as other countries over the formation and functioning of phraseologisms in the Russian language (as well as in some other (classical and contemporary) languages).

Interesting facts with regard to the cultural sources of Russian proverbs and sayings (and other stable word combinations) were taken up and discussed in Ivan M. Snegirev's works. The research conducted let the scholar classify multi-word constructions into three main groups: 1) anthropological proverbs and sayings which stem from pagan beliefs and superstitions and reveal Russian people's principles and ways of acting, their worldview, habits and customs, e.g.: Чему быmь, mому не мuноваmь (lit. If something is to be it cannot be avoided); 2) proverbs and sayings that refer to nature (its meteorological, astronomic, agricultural and medical aspects), e.g.: Тuхая во∂а береƨа ∂оnмываеm (lit. Still water undermines/washes away the banks); 3) historical proverbs and sayings (chronological, topographic and ethnographic), e.g.: К кому Боƨоро∂u???u̧а, а к нам Лumва (lit. to whom the Mother of God, but to us Lithuania) (Snegirev 1831a, Snegirev 1831b, and Snegirev 1848). Snegirev provided the language units under consideration with the comments on the cultural factors that fostered the emergence of this or that proverb (or saying, and idiom) in the Russian language as well as on communicative situations in which their use could be most appropriate. Special attention was paid to the borrowings from different languages (Arabic, German, Greek, Serbian, Turkish, Tatar, etc) as the means that could influence in a certain sense the evolution of the Russian language, the mode of thinking of Russians and their life style.

Fedor I. Buslaev (1861) claimed in his book that there were two main stages (or epochs) in the history of Russian proverbs: 1) the stage related to the life of hunters, herders and warriors, e.g.: uз омуmа в а∂, как рукоŭ nо∂аmь (lit. out of the whirlpool into hell is like an arm's length distance); 2) the stage related to a settled way of life, to the life of farmers, e.g.: nлуƨ кормum, а луƨ nорmum (lit. the plough feeds while the meadow corrupts). The spread of Christian ideas, according to the scholar, also had a great impact on the development of the Russian phraseological fund. Buslaev stated repeatedly that proverbs (alongside myths, riddles, parables, tales) imprinted deep knowledge of life and social relations on people's minds, underscored that they were full of a people's wisdom and their study means “gaining an insight into thought” (“the Russian thought”, in particular) (Buslaev 1861).

The ideas advanced and the research initiated with reference to cultural aspects of multi-word units of different kinds in Russian scholars’ works of the 18^th – 19^th centuries were supported and further developed in the 20^th century when they acquired firm theoretical grounding within a newly created academic discipline – phraseology.

2.2 Linguo-cultural investigations of phraseologisms in the 20^th century

In the 20^th century, the problem of relation between phraseology and culture enters a new stage of its development aiming at finding appropriate theoretical grounds and adequate methodological tools that can help to explore the relation between phraseology and culture and explicate the cultural-national specificity of phraseologisms of Russian as well as other languages.

Viktor V. Vinogradov, a founder of the Russian phraseological tradition, addressed this problem in his works. The scholar, in line with the ideas expressed earlier by Aleksander A. Potebnya (1914), emphasized that in the Russian language there were words with special cultural implications, i.e. words that render various symbolic meanings and may even serve as cultural symbols. For instance, каnля (a drop) is regarded in Russian culture as a symbol of minimal quantity of something (Vinogradov 1938) and can be used as a symbolic component in a number of Russian phraseologisms, cf.: нu каnлu (lit. not a drop of) – ‘absolutely none of something’; каnля в море (lit. a drop in the sea) – ‘an insignificant amount’ which might be traced to historical (Indo-European) reasons. In his works, Vinogradov paid particular attention to the analysis of cultural sources of Russian phraseologisms and the history of their development and use (see, e.g., the analysis of оmлuваmь nулu (lit. to mould/cast bullets) meaning ‘to lie; to disseminate gossip or stories that are impossible to believe’ in [Vinogradov 1999: 269–271]).^[3]

Based on Vinogradov's research as well as on the works of his predecessors, the Russian phraseological tradition developed since the late 1930s and up to the early 1990s owing to substantial contributions made by many prominent Russian scholars who started elaborating diverse approaches to the study of cultural-national and cultural-historical aspects of phraseologisms, for instance: B. A. Larin (1956), V. L. Arkhangel'skiy (1964), A. V. Kunin (1964), I. I. Chernysheva (1970), G. L. Permyakov (1970, 1971), L. I. Royzenzon (1972), A. I. Fedorov (1973), N. I. Tolstoy (1973), V. P. Zhukov (1975), R. N. Popov (1976), V. G. Gak (1977), Yu. A. Gvozdarev (1977), A. D. Raykhshteyn (1980), V. G. Kostomarov & E. M. Vereshchagin (1982), E. M. Solodukho (1982), Yu. P. Solodub (1985) and many others. As a result, there appeared a number of scientific centers of phraseological studies in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kazan’, Kostroma, Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk, Oryol, Pskov, Rostov, Tula, Veliky Novgorod, Vladimir, Volgograd, Voronezh and some others. Thus, the Russian phraseological tradition of the period in question joined together the representatives of various phraseological schools with their own research agendas concerning the study of linguo-cultural peculiarities of phraseology.

As a result, due to the combined scientific efforts and much work done in the field of phraseology, the early 1990s saw the rapid development of several directions (or approaches) focused on the research of the interface between culture and phraseology in different theoretical-methodological frameworks within the Russian phraseological tradition. These directions can be defined as mainstream approachesto linguo-cultural aspects of phraseology at present. One of the distinctive features of these approaches is their multidisciplinary (i.e. intra- and interdisciplinary) character. Theу stand at the intersection of different branches of linguistics as well as other human sciences, such as anthropology, cognitive science, ethnography, philosophy, psychology, semiotics and some others. These mainstream approaches are as follows: the historical or diachronic approach, e.g. (Mokienko 2001; Shulezhkova 2011); the comparative or contrastive approach, e.g. (Arsent’yeva 2006; Fedulenkova 2012); the regional-linguistic approach, e.g. (Mal’tseva 1993; Vereshchagin & Kostomarov 2005); the ethnolinguistic approach, e.g. (Tolstoy 1995; Berezovich 2007); psycholinguistic approach, e.g. (Dobrovol'skiy & Karaulov 1992; Stepanova 2012); the cognitive-linguistic approach, e.g. (Beliaevskaya 2005; Baranov & Dobrovol'skiy 2008); linguoculturological approach, e.g. (Teliya 1996).^[4]

Despite the fact that the given approaches have to do with the same key problem, i.e. cultural insights into phraseologism-formation, and overlap in some ways, each approach is distinguished by its own theoretical objectives, academic tasks and methodology. This is true of the linguoculturological approach to phraseology developed within the Russian phraseological tradition by prof. Teliya and representatives of her phraseological school.

3.1 Key theoretical and methodological aspects of the linguoculturological research of phraseologisms

The linguoculturological approach is, in essence, a further and highly productive line of development in the phraseological theory that stems from the works of prominent Russian scholars of the previous centuries engaged in the analysis of phraseology as a cultural (or culture-bound) phenomenon (see Section 2). From this point of view, its emergence was rather logical and predictable as it was actually brought about by the whole course of the evolution of the Russian phraseological thought and by the common tendencies in the advancement of the Russian phraseological tradition.

It is worth noting that as the approach of a synthetic type its theoretical and methodological foundations have been built up under the influence of several particular fields of the humanities. According to Teliya, the linguoculturological approach to phraseology inherits primarily the views of J.G. von Herder and W. von Humboldt (Teliya & Doroshenko 2010). It also adopts particular ideas couched in culturological and anthropological as well as philosophical, psychological and semiotic works of such Russian and foreign scholars, as A. K. Baiburin, R.Barthes, E. Cassirer, J. G. Frazer, G. D. Gachev, A. Ya. Gurevich, V. V. Ivanov, C. G. Jung, L.Lévy-Bruhl, D. S. Likhachev, Yu. M. Lotman, B. Malinovski, E. Sapir, G. G. Shpet, Yu. S. Stepanov, V. N. Toporov, E.B.Tylor, B. A. Uspensky, J.L.Weisgerber, B. L. Whorf, L.Wittgenstein and some others.

The foremost theoretical tenets of the linguoculturological approach to phraseology were formulated and discussed in a number of works by Teliya published since the mid-1990s to the 2010s (e.g. Teliya 1995, Teliya 1996, Teliya 1999, Teliya 2006; Teliya & Doroshenko 2010). As is stated in these works, the basic theoretical assumptions that underlie the approach in question are as follows:

1. language and culture are two separate sign (or semiotic) systems between which there exist the relationships of interaction;

2. one of the major consequences of the ‘culture–language’ interaction is the formation of phraseological signs;

3. being created as a result of the culture and language interaction, phraseologisms are special signs that can store and accumulate a rather significant amount of cultural knowledge and reflect through their images peculiar ways of national (or culture-bound) worldview of reality;

4. rich cultural contents of phraseologisms, their expressive and emotional force, their penetration into all domains of language, a wide range of discourse application and some other their typical properties turn phraseologisms into language means that can function as “cultural signs” (i.e. cultural prototypes, cultural symbols, cultural stereotypes);

5. the “topmost” category and the starting point in linguoculturological research is the individual mentality of the language speaker who plays the crucial role in shaping the cultural content in phraseologisms.

Resting on these theoretical assumptions, the linguoculturological approach aimschiefly at the synchronic study of phraseologisms in their current use in diverse types of discourse. It is intended to explore the linguo-cultural competence of members of a particular linguo-cultural society on the basis of the analysis and description of cultural knowledge embedded in phraseologisms and constantly reproduced and activated through their (i.e. phraseologisms’) use in actual communicative practices (Teliya 1999). So, one of the major concerns within the linguoculturological framework is the research of phraseology as a crucial mechanism contributing to the formation and reinforcement of the collective cultural identity (Teliya et al. 1998).

Taking into account the fundamental and at the same time fairly challenging character of the aims set, the research agenda of the linguoculturological approach is quite large-scale. It implies a comprehensive study of a rather wide range of topical issues concerning the ways culture is incorporated into phraseological signs making the latter “instruments” of cultural memory and means of cultural-national self-awareness. In search for appropriate solutions, novel theoretical conceptions have been recently advanced, for instance, in (Zykova 2014).

In an attempt to make the knowledge about the process of ‘culture – language’ interaction explicit and in this way to discover how cultural information is translated into phraseological semantics, the investigation (Zykova 2014) elaborates the conception according to which the phraseological meaning is formed as a result of the inter-semiotic transposition (the term coined by R. Jakobson [1959]). Unlike Jakobson's interpretation, the inter-semiotic transposition is understood in the research in question as a transfer of some conceptual content from non-verbal signs of culture (e.g. from such semiotic domains as craft, music, entertainment, sport, clothing, food, travelling, etc) into language, i.e. phraseological, signs, cf., for instance: uƨраmь в nряmкu (lit. to play hide-and-seek), nере∂аваmь эсmафеmу (lit. to pass the baton), кормumь завmракамu (lit. to feed someone breakfasts), вывесmu на ∂ороƨу (lit. to help someone to find the right path/way).

The analysis conducted has revealed that the inter-semiotic transposition is essentially an ‘umbrella’ notion for a number of cognitive processes. To construct a phraseological meaning it is mostly likely to involve at least the following cognitive operations – selecting some conceptual contents from different semiotic domains of culture, its synthesizing and structuring. In accordance with the data obtained, these operations result primarily in the formation of the deep stratum of the phraseological meaning, which turned out to be a macro-metaphorical conceptual model. As it was stated, the model gives rise to a number of individual phraseological images underlying the semantics of corresponding phraseological signs. In particular, the case-study of Russian phraseologisms from the word-field of verbal communication (more than 1000 items) has showed that their meanings are based on 11 macro-metaphorical conceptual models (VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS COMMERCE, VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS PLAY, VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS GASTRONOMY, etc).^[5] For instance, the macro-metaphorical conceptual model VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS CRAFT is characterized by a rather high degree of phraseological creativity. It generates in the Russian language a great quantity of phraseologisms as compared to the other models, e.g.: шumо белымu нumкамu (lit. [it is] sewn with white threads) – ‘[of a story, excuse etc] (something) sounds shaky’; оmлuваmь колокола (lit. to mould/cast bells) – ‘to lie shamelessly’; снuмаmь сmруЖку (lit. to remove (wood) shavings) – ‘to reprimand, criticize severely’.

In addition, special attention was paid to the issue of what enables phraseologisms to act as a store of cultural knowledge. Resting on the notion of ‘cultural memory’ (Yuriy M. Lotman [2001]), the research conducted has proved that it is the macro-metaphorical conceptual models underlying the meaning of phraseologisms that make it possible for the latter to keep and accumulate significant amount of cultural information. Owing to these conceptual structures, phraseologisms are capable of retaining diverse types of cultural information rooted in collective experience of world-cognition of different historical periods (e.g., archetypal, mythological, religious, philosophical, scientific) as well as of collective experience of world-perception confined principally to such main kinds of sensuous experience as emotional, ethical and aesthetic experience (Zykova 2013b, Zykova 2014). It is worth mentioning that, according to the research findings, any macro-metaphorical conceptual model stores all stated types of cultural information – archetypal, mythological, religious, philosophical, scientific as well as emotional, ethical and aesthetic. However, these types of cultural information manifest themselves differently through the phraseological images that the models generate. As it is hardly possible to describe all of them in detail in one paper, we will consider one type of cultural information – the mythological information. For example, the macro-metaphorical conceptual model VERBAL COMMUNICATION IS TRAVEL gives rise to the phraseologism язык ∂о Кuева ∂ове∂еm (lit. the tongue will help one to get to Kiev) – ‘you can always find the way by asking’. The image of this idiom imprints on the mind of language speakers among others such vestiges of the mythological way of thinking as anthropomorphism due to which the tongue is viewed as a human being – a fellow traveler who does not let his companion be lost on his way to the required destination (Kiev). Another Russian phraseologism which is also based on the macro-metaphorical conceptual model in question is обхо∂umь сmороноŭ (~ to pass something around/by) – ‘intentionally not to discuss something’. Such primitive (or elementary) belief as magic-making characteristic of the mythological form of world-cognition finds its way into its image in this case. The avoidance of discussing something is understood in terms of a travel in which one takes a particular direction (i.e. сmороноŭ). The circuitous (or curved) way along which one moves (or travels) is endowed with special magic powers that can save a traveler from danger and evil force (see also Zykova 2011, Zykova 2013a, 2013b).

In general, due to the investigations performed over the last decades, the linguoculturological approach is at present the domain of research that has at its disposal rather effective terminological equipment. Much work has been done in order to elaborate linguoculturological terms proper that can provide a reliable conceptual grounding for an in-depth examination of key linguoculturological issues. The metalanguage of linguoculturological analysis and description of phraseology embraces the following terms as its basic items: ‘conceptual sphere of culture’ (or ‘conceptoshpere of culture’), ‘codes of culture’, ‘cultural connotation’, ‘cultural prescriptions’, ‘cultural-national specifics’, ‘cultural reference’, ‘linguo-cultural identity’ and ‘cultural-national (collective) identity’, ‘linguo-cultural competence’, ‘cultural (sub)concepts’ and ‘linguo-cultural (sub)concepts’, 'symbolarium of culture’ (that embraces such cultural phenomena as archetypes, totems, symbols, mythologemes, rituals, amulets, and some others) ‘cultural information’ or ‘cultural data’, ‘cultural semes’, ‘cultural background’, ‘cultural markers’ and ‘cultural markedness’, ‘cultural patterns’, ‘discourse stereotypes’, ‘basic layers of culture’ or ‘archeology of culture’, ‘cultural memory’ (e.g. Teliya et al. 1998; Oparina 1999; Krasnykh 2003; Bragina 2007; Beliaevskaya 2007; Kovshova 2009; Med 2014; Zykova 2015)^[6]. For instance, within the linguoculturological framework ‘codes of culture’ are defined as those sources of the cultural worldview (e.g. animate beings, artefacts, etc.) that are products of their cultural cognition and cultural evaluation, e.g. ‘food code’, 'spatial code’, zoomorphic code’, etc. helping to discover semantic regularities in sets of phraseological units with the corresponding components (Teliya, Doroshenko 2010: 10). As another example, ‘cultural prescriptions’ are understood as ethical and social guidelines that motivate the understanding of certain texts or signs of culture, the choice of particular patterns of behavior as well as determine the character of evaluative attitudes to them (Oparina 2004).

There is a number of novel terminological coinages that proved to be rather helpful in studying the cultural specifics of phraseologism-formation and are a matter of intense discussion in ongoing researches: ‘linguoculture’ (Krasnykh 2014), ‘quasi-symbols’, ‘quasi-prototypes’ and ‘quasi-stereotypes’ (Teliya 1996; Kovshova 2012), ‘macro-metaphorical conceptual model’ and ‘phraseological creativity’ (Zykova 2015).

Among recent significant advancements in the research field in question is the elaboration of linguoculturological methods of phraseological analysis. Nowadays, the linguoculturological methodology comprises such methods as the method of culturological interpretation of phraseologisms; the method of (linguo)culturological commentation; the method of linguoculturological experiment; the method of linguoculturological reconstruction of deep (conceptual) foundations of the meaning of phraseologisms; the method of linguoculturological decoding and interpretation of cultural information. These methods were described in detail in a number of works in which they proved to be rather effective in studying phraseologisms as culture-bound signs (e.g. Teliya 1999, Teliya 2006; Kabakova 1999; Kovshova 2012; Zykova 2015).

The application of the linguoculturological methods devised has proved to be rather fruitful not only in exploring central as well as peculiar linguoculturological issues and in providing reliable evidence that helps to verify its key theoretical assumptions. Their use contributes to the development of the lexicographical theory and practice of dictionary-making.

3.2 The linguoculturological approach in the practice of dictionary compiling

Alongside particular theoretical tasks, the linguoculturological approach to phraseology aims to devise lexicographical principles of linguoculturological description of phraseologisms. As a significant outcome of the profound and long-standing work done in this direction, “Bol'shoy frazeologicheskiy slovar’ russkogo yazyka” (“The Large Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language”) was published in 2006 and its latest (fourth) edition came out in 2014. It was compiled by a whole team of linguists, which includes such scholars as V.N. Teliya (ed.), I.S. Brileva, D.B. Gudkov, I.V. Zakharenko, I.V. Zykova, S.V. Kabakova, M.L. Kovshova, V.V. Krasnykh.

The dictionary deals with 1,500 phraseologisms that are widely usable in the present-day Russian language. It is characterized by a number of novel features that distinguish it from many other contemporary lexicographical editions of Russian idioms that are described in detail in the Foreword written by Teliya (2006). The most remarkable distinction is that each entry of the dictionary is provided with a special section called “Culturological comments”.

The “Culturological comments” gives information based on the results of a comprehensive and thorough analysis of Russian idioms conducted with the help of two interrelated methods of culturological commentation and culturological interpretation. The methods in question involve several core analytical procedures intended to establish:

(1) the correlation between the entire image of a certain phraseologism (or some of its components) with such ancient layers of culture as archetypal oppositions, mythological beliefs, rituals, religious doctrines, historical traditions, old cultural conventions, folklore texts. For example, certain vestiges of the mythological thought can be discovered in the Russian idiom злоŭ язык (lit. an evil tongue). In this phraseologism, язык (tongue) is conceived in terms of a living being who behaves in an aggressive manner. It means that the image of the idiom imprints the traces of such ancient mode of world-cognition as animism, i.e. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe (pp. 238–239);

(2) the correspondence between the entire image of a phraseologism (or some of its components) with codes of culture – thematically related sets of real (or material, physical) objects or phenomena endowed with diverse cultural senses or implications.

There are such codes of culture as the anthropic code which includes designations of people, their physical properties, mental and emotional states or characteristics, etc, e.g.: браmья nо оруЖuЮ (lit. brothers in arms) (pp. 55–57); the somatic code which embraces parts or organs of the body and their functional peculiarities, e.g.: во nлоmu u кровu (lit. in flesh and blood) (pp. 126–132); the zoomorphic code which includes animals, e.g: как рыба в во∂е (lit. like fish in water) (pp. 311–312); the artefact code which includes various objects made by man, e.g.: на ноЖах (lit. be at knives) pp. 418–419); the spatial code which includes phenomena related to various dimensions of space, its parameters, properties as well as location, locomotion, directions, objects particularly situated, etc, e.g.: в∂оль u nоnерек (lit. along and across; ~ far and wide) (pp. 105–107), the vestimentary code that comprises diverse articles and parts of costume or clothes, e.g.: nолучаmь nо шаnке (lit. to get it at one's hat) (pp. 166–168) and many others. All codes of culture are interlinked and this, most likely, allows components of one and the same phraseologism to correlate with different codes of culture rather than with one and the same code of culture. For instance, in the Russian idiom оmnеmыŭ ∂урак (lit. a fool over whom the burial service was read) the component оmnеmыŭ correlates with the religious code of culture, while the component ∂урак – with the anthropic code (pp. 507–508). Each code of culture comprises a great variety of constituent elements, which can function as symbols, prototypes or stereotypes in Russian culture. As an illustration, in the Russian idiom ∂ерЖаmь в [своuх] руках (lit. to hold in [one's] hands) the component рука (hand) correlates with the somatic code of culture in which it serves as a symbol of power (p. 73);

(3) the link between the codes of culture to which components of phraseologisms are related and the kinds of tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, simile, oxymoron, etc.) that underlie the formation of their images. For instance, both components of the Russian idiom лакомыŭ <жuрныŭ> кусок <кусочек> (lit. dainty <fat> (little) morsel) correlate with the gastronomic code of culture which gives rise to the phraseological image based on the gastronomic metaphor. According to this image, a human being or some object is conceived in terms of something tasty, something that has a pleasant, appetizing flavour which makes it nice to eat (p. 347);

(4) the role that a certain idiom plays as a sign of culture (i.e. as a cultural symbol, a cultural stereotype or a cultural prototype). For instance, the Russian phraseologism несmu <mаЩumь, везmu> на своuх nлечах (lit. to carry <draw, drive> something on one's shoulders) renders the stereotype of someone's exceptional responsibility for solving various (one's own or someone else's), rather challenging tasks and problems in life (p. 353). As another illustration, the Russian idiom курuные <???u̧ыnлячьu, nmuчьu> мозƨu (lit. a hen's <chicken's, bird's> brains) serves as a cultural prototype of man's low intellectual abilities (pp. 343–345).

It should be specially emphasized that the section “Culturological comments” contains all the variety of information described above (points 1–4) with regard to each idiom that is given in the dictionary as a head matter of an entry. To demonstrate this, the extract of the “Culturological comments” to the Russian idiom нa ноЖах с кем-лuбо (lit. to be at knives with someone) denoting ‘to be on extremely hostile terms with someone’ can be considered.

In accordance with the four core points described above, the section in question holds the following cultural data drawn in the course of the linguoculturological analysis of this phraseologism (pp. 418–419):

(1) The phraseological unit derives from the ancient mythological as well as religious ideas about ноЖ (knife) as an instrument used in acts of sacrifice and as a tool applied in actions intended to make someone suffer martyrdom. Within the framework of the mythological mode of thinking, ноЖ (knife) is perceived as an object endowed with magic (sacred) powers owing to which it can be employed in certain cult performances. The image of the idiom на ноЖах is related to such ancient archetypical oppositions as ‘own – alien’, ‘piece – war’ as well as to the opposition ‘life – death’.

(2) The component of the phraseologism на (at) correlates with the spatial code of culture, while the component ноЖ (knife) – with the artefact code.

(3) The image of the phraseologism is based on the spatial-artefact metaphor by means of which extremely hostile relationships between people are perceived in terms of an armed struggle with the use of such type of lethal weapon as the knife. In this phraseological image ноЖ (knife) is associated with death, aggression and serves as a symbol of destruction. The image also pertains to the conceptions of the ancient code of blood revenge (or vengeance) when murdering one's adversary was regarded as the only possibility to avenge injuries, insults or sufferings inflicted by him and to restore one's honour or reputation (compare with other Russian expressions characterized by similar cultural implications: с ноЖом к ƨорлу (lit. with a knife to someone's throat), ноЖ в сnuну / в сер∂???u̧е (lit. (thrust) a knife into someone's back / heart), ноЖ осmрыŭ (lit. a sharp knife)). In ancient times, ноЖ (knife) was widely used in many rituals as a sign of war declaration. The knife that was brought as a gift to a meeting meant the break-up of any relationships, feud, hatred and intransigence.

(4) In Russian culture the phraseological unit as a whole plays the role of the cultural prototype of particularly intense and very adverse relationships between people that imply no reconciliation and agreements of any kind.

Occupying a significant part of each entry, the section “Culturological comments” discloses different parameters of culture involvement into the process of phraseologism-formation. Importantly, multiple contexts of discourse use of Russian phraseologisms drawn from a wide range of up-to-date sources (i.e. literary and publicistic works, the National Russian Corpus, selected Internet texts) and presented abundantly in the dictionary under consideration testify to the fact that different layers of culture (from the most ancient to contemporary ones) can be activated in the course of communication by contemporary native speakers of the Russian language.

It should be specially noted that the dictionary in question aims primarily at developing (or upgrading the level of) linguo-cultural competence and linguo-cultural proficiency the acquisition of which results from the process of internalizing collective cultural experience and adopting cultural values through phraseological signs as culture-bound phenomena.