Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd Partial Intersection and Discrepancy of Concepts in Cross-Cultural Communication Narine Harutyunyan Yerevan State University Serving as basic supporting elements of the language, concepts unite representa-tives of a certain linguoculture, providing foundation for mutual understanding between them through “bundles of meaning”, in which the spirit of the nation is embodied. The conceptual space of a separate language individual and linguoculture as a whole are organized into a concept-sphere, the main characteristics of which are those possibilities of joint “meaning-making” that it opens up before the native speakers. We believe that the most effective way of “reading” the national-specific concepts from languages is their interlinguistic comparison. One can agree with V.I. Karasik, who deems it possible to present the ethnocultural specifics of concepts by means of “mapping corresponding lexical and phraseological groups, comparing value judgments ensuing form stereotypes of behavior fixed in the meanings of words, set expressions, precedent texts,” as well as by means of the analysis of the inner form of words (Karasik 1996:14). The ability of concepts to grow and enrich due to the individual emotional and cul- tural experience of native speakers conditions their elasticity, instability, and mobility. On the one hand, the dynamic nature of concepts impedes their “docking” between dif- ferent cultures. On the other hand, the circumstance that they “spill over” one another forming a united space of culture creates the possibility for creative flight and search for a “compromise” between non-coincident concepts of different linguocultures. Typical examples of the linguistic embodiment of the comparable but not coinciding concepts of two linguocultures are words that are traditionally used as equivalents, but at the same time they only partially intersect from the point of view of the content inherent in them. As an example we can point out a discrepancy between the American and Armenian concepts friend and ընկեր. For an American the word friend is applicable to any per- son who is not an enemy. This reflects the unwillingness of Americans to establish very deep and long-term relationship, which is often accounted for by their individualism and geographic mobility. We, on our part, are much “pickier” with respect to who we can call a friend. Armenians feel they can count on a friend for assistance at any time. In the United States, the word friend is used loosely to include acquaintances, which is confus- ing to Armenians. For us, Armenians, a friend signifies a much closer relationship than it does for the Americans. According to the two Armenian proverbs given below, “death with a friend is a feast” or “friends are better than hundreds of dollars”. ÀÝÏ»ñáíÇ Ù³ÑÁ ѳñë³ÝÇù ¿: ØÇ áõÝ»óÇñ ѳñÛáõñ ¹³Ñ»Ï³Ý, áõÝ»óÇñ »ñÏáõ μ³ñ»Ï³Ù. Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies 121 Another example is the English word fun, which with a big stretch can be translated as áõñ³ËáõÃÛáõÝ, ½í³ñ׳Ýù, nevertheless has a wider semantics; it can stand for any positive emotions and refer to virtually any type of activity. Are you having any fun? is a capacious phrase from Broadway musical “George White’s Scandals of 1939” full of irony and at times even sarcasm, and virtually not translatable into Armenian. The Armenian ¸» ÇÝã, ³ñ¹»Ý É³í »ù is a weak reflection of what the original encloses. When comparing American and Armenian concept spheres, one thing that calls for attention is that Armenian concepts referring to the spiritual and emotional side of life often do not have American analogues. At the same time American concepts not translat- able into Armenian mainly reflect the pragmatic and activist nature of the American cul- ture. We can oppose the concepts soul and self as key notions characterizing the Armenian and American personality. In the US the presentation of a self is the preferred form of communication activity, indicating personal experience, thoughts and feelings, which is considered to be an adequate way of self-expression. The self is something internal and unique, valued in the society and implicitly suggesting the dignity of both the speaker and the interlocutor. The former Soviet concept of the self linked with dimensions of individualism-col- lectivism. It is well-known, that individualists give priority to personal goals over the goals of collectivists. Such traditional vital orientation stimulates a person’s practical efforts and aspirations, which are associated with individual success and with the American popular symbol and hero — the self-made man. This concept can be illustrat- ed with the help of the following phraseological units: to lock horns - ٻݳٳñïÇ Ù»ç ÙïÝ»É to stand up to one’s licklog - ³ñÇáõÃÛáõÝ óáõó³μ»ñ»É to shoot Niagara - éÇëÏÇ ¹ÇÙ»É to stand the gaff - ãËáõë³÷»É ¹Åí³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇó to come up to the rack - å³ï³ë˳ݳïáõ ÉÇÝ»É ³ñ³Í ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ to cut one’s eyeteeth on something - ëÏë»É /ÑÇÙù ¹Ý»É ë»÷³Ï³Ý ·áñÍÁ/ÇÝ, etc. The number of words found in any American English dictionary that are compound- ed with the word self is the indicator of how American English reflects individualism. One is likely to find in any English dictionary no fewer than 150 such words, including: self-absorbed, self-appointed, self-centered, self-confident, self-supporting, etc. (Cambridge International Dictionary of English 1995). In Armenian culture cordiality and warmth of feeling are more predominant than the individuality. That is why in Malxhasiants’ dictionary (1944) one can find approximately 200 compounded words with the word Ñá·Ç (soul): Ñá·»ÏáõÉ, Ñ᷻óóË, Ñ᷻ѳïáñ, Ñ᷻˳ñïÇã, Ñá·»Ëáñ, Ñá·»ïáõÝ, etc. In the Armenian discourse, one of the main dimensions of interpersonal communica- Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies 122 tion is the cordial talk. Thus, on the one hand, there is the “soul” community in which communication is based on the notions of morality and ethics of social life; on the other hand, there is a group of individuals, and factual information revealing their personal experience of interacting with the society lies in the basis of their communication. As a result, Armenians often perceive Americans as “soulless,” and Americans think we do not possess enough analytical thinking skills and ability to use factual information. As a parallel to the concept of Ñá·Ç (soul) one may single out the African-American concept of “soul,” significantly differing from the Anglo-Saxon concept and signifying deep sincerity, cordiality, and emotionality inherent in the black culture. This concept, which does not coincide with the Armenian one, can nevertheless be compared to it in terms of emotional richness and depth. Its “sphere of influence” includes such notions as soul brother – a black person, the same goes for soul sister (speaking of a girl or a woman), and soul music, a variety of the “rhythm-and-blues” trend that contains ele- ments of black spirituals and is characterized by distinct rhythm and emotionally rich vocal (Leontovich, Sheigal 2000). However, the “aura” of Armenian and the African- American concepts and the cultural associations evoked by them are very different and can be compared only to explain the “cordiality” typical of them. If there was a need to single out key American concepts, one could suggest challenge and privacy, the intranslatability of which into Armenian is obvious. In the dictionary “Life and Culture of the USA” (2002) the concept challenge, basi- cally having no analogue in Armenian concept sphere, is explained as follows: 1. task 2. problem, difficulty 3. trial 4. defiance . defiance (ë»÷³Ï³Ý áõÅ»ñÇ ùÝÝáõÃÛáõÝ, ëïáõ·áõÙ; ÷áñÓáõÃÛáõÝ; áñ¨ ¿ μ³ÝÇ Ñ³í³ëïÇáõÃÛáõÝÁ ѳñó³Ï³ÝÇ ï³Ï ¹ÝáÕ μ³Ý; Ù³ñï³Ññ³í»ñ. Challenge is one of the key words to understand the American national character; it expresses courage, readiness to take risks in order to test oneself, the spirit of adventure, striving to compete, and so on. It is not without reason that the name “Challenger” was given to an American spaceship. For example even the simplest sentences Spoke about your sufferings and challenges or We are anchored in one of the most challenged but spirited cities in the USA are hard to translate into Armenian. And its more difficult for us to catch the meaning of the word challenge in connection with politi- cal correctness, for example, challenged (instead of disabled, crippled), or a physically challenged person (instead of invalid) and visually challenged (instead of sightless). Adventurism and ability to take risks are more inherent in Americans than in Armenians. The concept privacy, meaning private space as well as the right for the non-intrusion into private life, occupies an important place in the system of American values and is manifested in all spheres of life: relations between children and parents, teachers and stu- dents, colleagues and acquaintances. Let me bring an example about privacy from American scholar Lurie’s article: “Privacy is a concept with far reaching implications, absolutely untranslatable into Russian or into the languages of the other 15 republics of the Soviet Union. It would be unfair to ascribe the lack of this concept solely to living conditions in the Soviet era, though, needless to say, communal apartments where from 4 to 10 families share a bathroom, dormitories and the thin-walled barracks where a few generations lived their lives, as well as the overcrowding in today’s urban dwellings, did Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies 123 and do little to foster the introduction of that concept into our daily experience” (Lourie, Mikhalev 1989:38). In the conditions of the Soviet Union the divergence of concepts that reflects the spirit of the nation, the specifics of thinking and the nature of perceiving reality by representa- tives of different linguocultures, can lead to the attempt of comprehending the other cul- ture through one’s own concept sphere and by doing so provoke situations of lack of understanding. The conflict of concepts formed in different “hypertexts,” on the intersec- tion of different meanings and associations, leads to delusions with respect to one another as a result of the defeated expectancy effect. Coming to Armenia, Americans often try to find their “network of coordinates” to ana- lyze the phenomena of our life. For example, in grant competitions American organiza- tions have Armenian participants fill out forms and evaluate the level of their professional competence through the prism of concepts widely spread in the American society, but not well-known to Armenians. That is why key American concepts such as pluralism and diversity often become a stumbling block for Armenian participants, who are not able to relate their own experience with concepts of another culture. A person who is not familiar with concepts of another culture does not experience inconvenience because of it. The study of lexis and grammar of a new language is not necessarily accompanied with mastering new concepts. In the opinion of A.A. Zalevskaya “When perceiving a new foreign language unit, a bilingual individual is inevitably trying to “adjust” the denotations of the correlative words in the contacting languages” (1978:72). The mastery of the concept sphere of a foreign language signifies a qualitatively new level of cultural-linguistic competence of an individual, the beginning of the existence of two linguocultures in “parallel worlds.” Great experience is required for an individual who appears in new cultural surroundings to “synchronize” his/her con- cepts as mental formations with the mental formations of the interlocutor - a bearer of given linguoculture. References: 1. Cambridge International Dictionary of English. (1995) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Karasik, V.I. (1996) Kulturnye dominanty v yazike. // Yazikovaya lichnost. Kulturnye koncepty. Volgograd: Peremena. 3. Life and Culture of the USA. (2002) Stanford: Stanford University Press. 4. Lourie, R., Mikhalev, A. (June 1989) Why You’ll Never Have Fun in Russian. // New York Times Book Review. 5. Malxhasiants, S. (1944) Hajeren bacatrakan bararan. Yerevan: Hajkakan SSR Petakan Hratarakchutjun. 6. Shejga, E.I. (2000) Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa. Volgograd: Peremena. 7. Zalevskaja, A.A. (1978) Ob eksperementalnom issledovanii struktury yazikovogo znaka v usloviaxh bilingvizma. // Psixholingvisticheskie i lingvisticheskie problemy yazikovixh kontaktov. Kalinin: KGU. Armenian Folia Anglistika Culture Studies 124 ÎáÝó»åïÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëݳÏÇ Ñ³ïáõÙÁ ¨ ѳϳëáõÙÁ /³Ýѳٳå³ï³ë˳ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ/ ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Ñ³Õáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ ÆÝãå»ë ѳÛïÝÇ ¿, ÏáÝó»åïÝ»ñÁ ³ß˳ñѳѳÛóù³ÛÇÝ ·³Õ³÷³ñÝ»ñÇ ¨ å³ïÏ»ñ³óáõÙÝ»ñÇ Ù»Ï ³ÙμáÕçáõÃÛáõÝ »Ý, Ëï³óí³Í ÙÇ Ñ³Ù³Ï³ñ·, áñÝ ³ñï³- ѳÛïíáõÙ ¿ É»½í³Ï³Ý áñáß³ÏÇ ï³ññ»ñÇ ÙÇçáóáí: Ð³×³Ë Ñ³ëϳóáõÛÃÝ»ñÁ, á- ñáÝù û·ï³·áñÍíáõÙ »Ý ï³ñμ»ñ É»½í³Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÝ»ñáõÙ áñå»ë ѳٳñÅ»ùÝ»ñ, Ç- ñ»Ýó Ý»ñùÇÝ å³ñáõݳÏáõÃÛ³Ý ï»ë³ÝÏÛáõÝÇó ѳïíáõÙ »Ý ÙdzÛÝ Ù³ëݳÏÇáñ»Ý: ²Ûë »ñ¨áõÛÃÁ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í ¿ Ùß³Ïáõó-å³ïÙ³Ï³Ý ¨ ѳë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ½áõ- ·áñ¹» ÉÇáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ß»ñï»ñáí, áñáÝù å³ï»Éáí ѳëϳóáõÛÃÁ ï³ÉÇë »Ý Ýñ³Ý ³½- ·³-Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ »ñ³Ý·³ íáñáõÙ: ØÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Ñ³Õáñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý å³ÛÙ³Ý- Ý»ñáõÙ ÏáÝó»åïÝ»ñÇ §ï³ ñ³Ó³ÛÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ¦ ϳñáÕ ¿ ѳݷ»óÝ»É Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ μ³ËáõÙÝ»ñÇ: ²Û¹ μ³ËáõÙÝ»ñÇó Ëáõë³÷» Éáõ ѳٳñ å³Ñ³ÝçíáõÙ ¿ É»½í³Ùß³- ÏáõÛÃÝ»ñÇ ÏáÝó»åïáÉáñïÝ»ñÇ ËáñÁ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ: Armenian Folia AnglistikaCulture Studies 125