Metaphorical model god is the need in English and Ukrainian biblical discourse

b) God's children: I am a child of God, we as His sons and daughters, we are God's children, He created me, God is our creator, Бог хоче, щоб Його діти прожили щасливе повне життя, ми Його діти;

c) under God's authority: He is my Commander in Chief, His is the `badge or banner ' I wear, the Lord is my banner, who my king is and who my allegiance is to; Я громадянин Божого царства. Людина, яка увірувала стає божою людиною, носіями носії Царства Божого, ми - прапороносці цього царства.

d) His servants: He is pleased with us and in the end says, “Well done my good and faithful servant”; Бог є Господь;

e) chosen and valuable: Jesus's sacrifice has paid the price for my sins. God's chosen people who will one day be with Him in heaven; Бог є Відкупитель;

The above Ukrainian and English-speaking respondents' metaphorics nests dichotomy of the worldview of people conceptualizing themselves as belonging to material and spiritual world at the same time. The metaphors that realize this dichotomy of the world (material / spiritual), a man (physical (corporal) man / inner (spiritual) man), beauty (outward / inward), cleanness (physical / spiritual) provide the base for the conceptual metaphor SPIRITUAL MAN IS A PHYSICAL MAN. However, the analysis of this mapping is beyond the scope of this paper.

Frame [Self-actualization needs] Slot. 'ACTUALIZATION OF POTENTIAL'

The need of self-actualization is the need of a personal development. It is a typical element that integrates the ideas of a man about actualization laid within a man potential. The mappings of the model convey the confidence that it is in God who is the source of any knowledge, the Creator of the Universe and a man, who is Beauty Himself that the need in knowledge, art, beauty and moral are being met: Lord who is the source of the knowledge; He is the fulfillment of our every desire;Бог є [...] пізнанням; Бог є той, хто все знає; Розум Всесвіту; Бог є істина; Бог - це абсолютне знання всього; Бог є справедливість; Бог є сумління, тому що це найвищий закон; моральний принцип і моральний канон, творчість; Бог є доброта, а доброта - це завжди краса; Бог це краса і гармонія; Краса є творчість. Бог є “художник”, “архітектор”, “науковець”.

Thus, as above metaphoric realizations show, God is conceptualized as the source of all human abilities, as the Creator who knows strong and weak sides of every human being, and is able to empower every person, and develop his or her potential.

Conclusions

The findings of the contrastive research account for a high degree of similarity of the metaphorical conceptualization of the Pentateuch realia in present-day English and Ukrainian discourse. The main shared models of metaphorical conceptualization of Biblical (the Pentateuch) realia in the English and Ukrainian discourse (based on the questionnaire) are as follows: anthropomorphic, naturemorphic, phitomorphic, zoomorphic, sociomorphic, artifact, military, temporal, and economic metaphors. Identified metaphors were classified by source-domain. Such broad variety of source-domains indicates the complexity of Biblical realia that to some degree lie beyond human comprehension and observation. Only employment of entire experience of dealing with the world ensures the coherence of their conceptualization.

Against the background of prevailing similarities of the contrasted types of metaphorical expansion, some differences can be pointed out. For example, artifact metaphoric sub-model with the source-domain `religious objects' is Ukrainian-specific projection. It is realized through a single metaphor The tree of Life is the Cross. As the examination has shown, this mapping accounts for the meaning “the center of the world” that arises from association between the most central Christian relic and the Tree that is found in the middle of the Biblical Paradise.

Pertinent for Ukrainian discourse also are the metaphors with the source-domain `the solar system' demonstrating the association of God with the world above, far beyond the limits of the man and, indeed, out of reach, and out of his control.

At the same time, in English discourse zoomorphic metaphor with the source domain `animals / birds' has turned to be more productive than in Ukrainian discourse. Zoomorphic metaphors underline the character of the object that is being metaphorically conceptualized, and are characterized by powerful pragmatic potential.

Furthermore, in both discourses the most productive are anthropomorphic, artifact, and military metaphors. The least productive are economic and temporal metaphors.

Taken together, it should be said that the general similarity of identified groups of metaphors proves universality of principles of metaphorical conceptualization that goes far beyond national boundaries.

Moreover, in the course of the contrastive analysis, the conceptual metaphor GOD IS THE NEED / БОГ Є ПОТРЕБА was reconstructed. This metaphorical model is pertinent for the English and Ukrainian discourse but, at the same time, is not elaborated in the Pentateuch (it is developed at length in the New Testament).

In the course of the contrastive study, the analysis of the model GOD IS THE NEED / БОГ Є ПОТРЕБА was carried out. It was established that the model can be represented by the following frames and slots:

¦ Frame [Physiological needs]: Slot 1. 'LIFE'; slot 2. 'AIR'; slot 3. 'WATER'; slot 4. 'FOOD'; slot 5. 'HEALTH, REST'; slot 4. 'LIGHT'.

¦ Frame [Safety needs]: Slot 1. 'PROTECTION, SECURITY'; slot 2. 'SHELTER'; slot 3. 'STABILITY, LAW, AND ORDER'.

¦ Frame [Social needs]: Slot 1. 'FAMILY RELATIONS'; slot 2. 'HELP AND CARE'; slot 3. 'LOVE, FRIENDSHIP'.

¦ Frame [Esteem needs]: Slot 'SELF-ESTEEM, RECOGNITION'.

¦ Frame [Self-actualization needs]: Slot 'ACTUALIZATION OF POTENTIAL'.

As far as the frame-slot-arrangement of the model, it should be pointed out that the values for the slots 'AIR' and 'WATER' were found only in the discourse of the Englishspeaking respondents.

In both discourses, the most productive slots of the model are the slot ' FOOD' of the frame [Physiological need] and the slot 'SELF-ESTEEM, RECOGNITION' of the frame [Esteem needs]. In Ukrainian respondents' discourse, in addition to the aforelisted slots, the productive slot is the slot 'FAMILY RELATIONS' of the frame [Social needs].

The subsequent examination of the slots' value of the model has allowed unveiling the ethnocultural specificity of the national mentality that is not obvious at first sight. As a result, it was found, first, that for both Ukrainian and English respondents the concept of GOD figuratively represents the collective idea of the highest spiritual values, for example, the FAMILY (interestingly, it is much more elaborated in Ukrainian discourse than in English). Secondly, the metaphorical conceptualization of the Pentateuch realia by Ukrainian-speaking respondents is influenced by Orthodox setting and national traditions. This becomes especially apparent against the English-speaking respondents' account for the Pentateuch realia that is rooted in the pure Evangelical tradition. (Here, we believe, historical factors come into play).

In general, the model GOD IS THE NEED / БОГ Є ПОТРЕБА accounts for the motives of the behavior, uncovers the reasons of peoples' preferences, and constant human leaning toward spiritual realia regardless of a great deal of scientific evidence against the existence of God. In understanding of both Ukrainian- and English-speaking respondents the concept GOD collects the universal GOOD and MORAL.

In addition, as the contrastive examination of metaphorics has shown, not merely the conception of the world but also self-conception of both Ukrainian and English respondents is strongly influenced by dichotomic view. It brings forward the idea of spiritual world, inner / spiritual man, and afterlife.

Thus, although obtained results testify a high degree of similarity of the metaphorical conceptualization of the Pentateuch realia in present-day English and Ukrainian discourse, the identified in a process of the contrastive analysis metaphorical model GOD IS THE NEED / БОГ Є ПОТРЕБА allows uncovering the ethnoculture-specific values related to the most important spheres of a human experience that is not obvious at first sight. It reveals subtle contrasts in metaphorical conceptualization of Biblical (the Pentateuch) realia by present-day representatives of English and Ukrainian linguocultures, and provides the conceptual foundation for evaluation of human values and behavior.

Further contrastive research of conceptual metaphors underlying the conceptualization of Biblical (the Pentateuch) realia in languages other than the English and Ukrainian seems to be a promising vector of investigation.

Abbreviations

References

1. Будаев, Е. В. (2020) Сопоставительная политическая метафорология [Contrastive Political Metaphorology]. [Електронний ресурс] : монография. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. Електрон. текстовые дан. (4,4 Мб). СПб. : Наукоемкие технологии. 464 с. 1 электрон. опт. диск (ЦД-РОМ). (In Russian).

2. Кубрякова, Е. С., Демьянков, В. З., Панкратс, Ю. Г, Лузина, Л. Г. (1997). Краткий словарь когнитивныкх терминов [A Brief Dictionary of Cognitive Terms]. М. : МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова. 248 с. (In Russian).

3. Лосский, В. Н. & Успенский Л. A. (2014). Смысл икон [Sense of the icons]. M. : Православный СвятоТихоновский гуманитарный университет : Эксмо. 336 с. (In Russian).

4. Минский, M. (1979). Фреймы для представления знаний [A Framework for Representing Knowledge] / пер. с англ. О. Н. Гринбаума ; под ред. Ф. М. Кулакова. Москва : Энергия. 151 с. (In Russian).

5. Стельмахович, M. Г. (1996). Українська родинна педагогіка [Ukrainian family pedagogy]. Kyiv : ІСДО. 288 с. (In Ukrainian).

6. Феофан (Быстров), аркхим. (1905). Тетраграмма, или Веткхозаветное божественное имя [Tetragrammaton or Old Testament divine name]. Санкт-Петербург. (In Russian).

7. Чудинов, А. П. (2003). Метафорическая мозаика в современной политической коммуникатции [Metaphorical Mosaic in Modern Political Communication]. Монография / Урал. гос. пед. ун-т. Екатеринбург. 248 с. (In Russian).

8. Arnold, W. R. (1905). The Divine Name in Exodus iii : 14. Journal of Biblical Literature, 24 (2), 107-165. The Society of Biblical Literature. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https ://www.jstor.org/stable/3260218

9. Barcelona, A. (2012). On the systematic contrastive analysis of conceptual metaphors : case studies and proposed methodology. II Language Pedagogy, edited by Dirk Geeraerts, Rene Dirven, John R. Taylor and Ronald W. Langacker, Berlin, Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 117-146. https ://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866254.117.

10. Bentzen, J. (09 June 2020). Rising religiosity as a global response to COVID-19 fear. Retrieved May 6, 2021, from https ://voxeu.org/article/rising-religiosity-global-response-covid-19-fear

11. Davies, G. H. Exodus. Torch Bible Commentaries. London : S.C.M. Press, 1967.

12. Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-137. Soeul : Hanshin.

13. Kovecses, Z. (2017). Conceptual metaphor theory. In Elena Semino and Zsofia Demjen (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Metaphor and Language, 13-27. London : Routledge.

14. Kovecses, Z. (2018). Metaphor in media language and cognition : A perspective from conceptual metaphor theory. In Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw : De Gruyter Open, 2018, III (1), June 2018, p. 124-141. DOI : 10.2478/lart-2018-0004 ISSN 2453-8035

15. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (second edition), 202-251. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

16. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York : Harpaer& Row.

17. Max-Neef, M. A., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. New York : The Apex Press.

18. Minsky's Frame System Theory. (1975). Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing : TINLAP '75. Stroudsburg, PA, USA : Association for Computational Linguistics, 104-116. DOI : 10.3115/980190.980222.

19. Obermann, J. (1949). The Divine Name YHWHin the Light of Recent Discoveries Journal of Biblical Literature, 68 (4),301-323.https://doi.org/10.2307/3262100. Retrieved May 5,2021, from

20. http ://www.jstor.org/stable/3262097.

21. Surls, Austin. (2017). Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus : From Etymology to Literary Onomastics. Penn State University Press, Eisenbrauns.

1. Бусел В. (ред.). (2005). Англійсько-український словник. Українсько-англійський словник : 250 000 + 250 000 : два в одному томі : 500 000 одиниць перекладу [English-Ukrainian dictionary. Ukrainian-English dictionary : 250 000 + 250 000 : two in one volume : 500 000 translation units]. Київ; Ірпінь : ВТФ “Перун”. [In Ukrainian].

2. Фасмер. М. (1987). Этимологический словарь русского языка [The Russian language etymological dictionary] : В 4-х т. : Пер. с нем. 2-е изд., стереотип. (р. 600). М. : Прогресс. T. 3. [In Russian].

3. Merriam-WebsterDictionary. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from https ://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ need

4. The Orthodox Study Bible. The St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology (2008). Nashville, TN : Thomas Nelson.