Recommended literature. 1. Антонов, В.И. Язык и культура: особенности этносемантической интерпретации / В.И

1. Антонов, В.И. Язык и культура: особенности этносемантической интерпретации / В.И. Антонов // Вестник Московского Университета. Серия 7. Философия. – 2001. - №2, с.57-58.

2. Бурова, И.И., Силинский С.В. США. Страноведение / И.И. Бурова, С.В. Силинский – Санкт-Петербург: Лениздат, 2002. – 398c.

3. Верещагин, Е.М., Костомаров В.Г. Лингвострановедческая теория слова / Е.М.Верещагин, В.Г. Костомаров – М.: Русский язык, 1980. – 320с.

4. Воробьев, В.В. Лингвокультурология / В.В.Воробьев – М.: Общество любителей Русской словесности, 1997. – 240с.

5. Голицынский, Ю. The United States of America / Ю.Голицынский. – Санкт-Петербург: Каро, 2002. – 258с.

6. Крицберг, Р.Л. О некоторых особенностях узуса языковых единиц в американском и британском вариантах английского языка / Р.Л. Крицберг // Иностранные языки в школе. – 2002.- №3. – с.45 -47.

7. Мамонтов, А.С. Язык и культура: основы сопоставительного лингвострановедения: Автореф. дис. докт. филол. наук /А.С. Мамонтова; Моск. гос. лингвист. ун – т. - М., 2000. – 37с.

8. Нещименко, Г. К постановке проблемы «Язык как средство трансляции культуры» / Г.Нещименко // Культурология. Дайджест. – 2002. - №2, - с.92-96.

9. Ощепкова, В.В. Что есть что в США / В.В. Ощепкова – М.: Иностранный язык, 1994. – 189с.

10. Сысов, П.В. Язык и культура: в поисках нового направления в преподавании культуры изучаемого языка / П.В. Сысов // Иностранные языки в школе. – 2001. - №4, с. 12-14.

11. Томахин, Г.Д. Америка через американизмы / Г.Д. Томахин – М.: Высшая школа, 1982. – 238с.

12. Халилова, Л.А. США: История и современность / Л.А. Халилова – М.: Рольф, 1999. – 256с.

13. Швейцер, А.Д. Очерк современного английского языка в США/ А.Д. Швейцер - М.: Высшая школа, 1963. – 216с.

14. Crystal David. Linguistics / David Crystal – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. – 489p.

15. Ter-Minasova, Svetlana Language, Linguistics and Life / Svetlana Ter-Minasova. – M.: Moscow State University Association “Humanitarian knowledge” “TEIS”, 1996. – 156p.

16. Tomakhin, G.D. Look at the USA / G.D. Tomakhin. – M.: International relations Publishing House, 1966. - 180р.

Список лексикографических справочников

1. Американа. Энциклопедия повседневной жизни / под ред. Л.М. Гейман. – М.: Энциклопедическая творческая ассоциация, 1998. – 1861с.

2. Американа: Англо-русский лингвострановедческий словарь/ под ред. Г.В.Чернова. – Смоленск, 1996. – 654с.

3. Матюшенков, В.С. Англо-русский словарь особенностей английского языка в северной Америке, Великобритании, Австралии / В.С. Матюшенков. – М.: Флинта, Наука, 2002. – 516с.

4. Тера-Лексикон: Энциклопедический словарь/ под ред. С.Новикова. – М.: ТЕРРА, 1998. – 672с.

5. Современные Соединенные Штаты Америки: Энциклопедический справочник. – М.: Политиздат, 1998. – 542с.

6. Томахин, Г.Д. США. Лингвострановедческий словарь / Г.Д. Томахин – М.: Русский язык, 1999. – 576с.

7. Oxford Guide to British and American Culture. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. – 600p.

8. Webster`s Third New International Dictionary. – Springfield, Massachusetts, USA: Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers, 1986. – 2622р.

LECTURE 2. Culture bumps: overcoming misunderstandings in cross – cultural communication

(the vision of the world of a nation, realia, words without equivalents, the function of language as a tool of culture, the vision of the world, the sociocultural component, the world of language, the world of reality, different speech communities, actual “equivalents” in the full sense of the word, mode of living, the moral code, relations between people, the system of values, determined by socio-historical factors)

Plan

1. Man – Language – World Relationship

2. Shattering the idea of word equivalence at the level of lexical units

1. Man – Language – World Relationship

The function of language as a tool of culture has been ignored for a long period of time. However, this aspect of language is extremely important for many reasons.

Language reflects the world of its users. The vision of the world of a nation is conveyed by its language, the latter reflecting not only geography, climate, mode of living, but also the moral code, relations between people, the system of values, determined by socio-historical factors. Thus, culture in the broad, anthropological sense of the word is reflected by language.

Language shapes its user, imposing on him/her the vision of the world and the culture of human relations reflected and stored in it.

The first two statements are so obvious, so well investigated, so many papers have been written (and are being written) on the subject. But still it is the focus of attention. As is well-known, language is the main, the most explicit, the most obvious, official and socially acknowledged means of communication. The life and development of any human society is based on communication through language (which does not exclude, of course, other ways of communication).

Developing communicative skills is a difficult problem everywhere but it is particularly complicated in this country where for so many years Foreign Language Teaching was generally oriented on recognition while production was neglected.

And although both recognition and production skills cannot be developed without the background knowledge of the world of the language under study, it is speech production, the actual use of language which makes the importance and inevitability of the sociocultural component so evident. Indeed, it is a great misunderstanding to believe that in order to use language, to produce speech, both written and oral, it is enough to know words as lists of meanings and rules of bringing them together in speech (that is grammar and syntax). The problem is that the idea of meaning as a reference to reality invariably leads one out of the world of language into the world of reality. Consequently, bringing words together means bringing objects of reality together. The real worlds may coincide in some physical features but the visions of the world by different peoples representing different speech communities do not coincide. Thus, words of different languages which seem to refer to the same object or idea can hardly ever be actual “equivalents” in the full sense of the word.