ETHNOCULTURAL SEMANTICS OF UKRAINIAN ARTIFACT THRESHOLD IN A COMPARATIVE ASPECT

Nadiia І. Pashkova
Ph. D., Assosiate Professor
Kyiv National Linguistic University


DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/StudLing2021.18.98-107


FULL TEXT PDF (UKRAINIAN)


ABSTRACT

The main objective of the study is to analyze the ethnocultural semantics of the artifact porih (threshold), implicitly embedded in its name and related long-out-of-date transparent rituals, taboos and archaic believs. The research methodology is based on the application of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the cornerstones of semiotics, linguistics and culturology. In addition to general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, the study uses the cultural-genetic method, as well as such culturological and linguistic methods as descriptive, historicalcomparative and conceptual-ideographic analysis. The scientific novelty of the study is that it combines linguistic and cultural analysis of the semantics of the ethnic artifact threshold in the models of the world of different peoples in an effort to answer the question of what is rooted in rituals and taboos associated with its sacralization. As a result of the study, conclusions were drawn that the roots of the sacralization of the threshold lies in the archaic deification of the threshold by different unrelated ethnic groups as the boundary between human and divine, one’s own and other’s, mastered and dangerous. The significance of the study is determined by the findings that the commonality of rituals associated with the threshold in different ethnic collectives gives it the status of cultural universal.

Key words: threshold, semantics, ritual, taboo, sacralization, cultural universal.


REFERENCES

  1. Encyclopedychnyj slovnyk symvoliv kultury Ukrainy, red. V. Kotsur, O. Potapenko, V. Kujbida, 5 ed. (Korsun-Sevchenkivskyj: FOP Gavryshenko V. M., 2015), 912 (Іn Ukr.).
  2. Zhajvoronok, V. Znaky ukrajinskoji etnokultury (Kyiv, Dovira, 2006), 703 (Іn Ukr.).
  3. Lozko, G. Ukrajinske narodoznavstvo (Ternopil, Mandrivets, 2011), 512 (Іn Ukr.).
  4. Slavjanskije drevnosti. Etnolingvisticheskij slovar: in 5 v., red. N. Tolstoj (Moskva, Institut slavjanovedenija RAN, v. 2, 1999), 687 (Іn Rus.).
  5. Slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy: in 11 vol., red. Bilodid I. (Kyiv, Nauk. dumka, v7, 1976), 474 (Іn Ukr.).
  6. Tailor, A. Doistoricheskij byt chelovechestva i nachalo civilizaciji. (Moskva, 1868) n Rus.).
  7. VasmerM. Etimologicheskij slovar russkogo jazyka: in 4 vol. (Moskva, Progress, v. 3, 1987), 832 (Іn Russian).
  8. Fraser, J. Folklor v Vethom zavjteje (Moskva, Іzdatelstvo politicheskoj litjeratury, 1985), 512 (Іn Rus.).
  9. Frazeologichnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy, za red. Palamarchuka L. S. (Kyiv, Nauk. Dumka, v2, 1993), 982 (Іn Ukr.).
  10. Javorskaja, G. М. «O konceptje DOM v ukrainskom jazykje».[About the concept of DOM in Ukrainian] Sokrovjennyje smysly. Slovo. Tekst. Kultura: sbornik statej v chest N. D. Arutjunovoj (Moskva, Jazyki russkoj kultury, 2004): 716–728 (Іn Rus.).
  11. Dauzat, А., Dubois, J., Mitterand, H. Nouveau dictionnaire etymologique et historique. (Paris: Larousse, 1981), 805 (Іn French).