A contrastive psycholinguistic study of the British emotional concept "envy" and Ukrainian "zazdrist’": particularities of phraseological objectification

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav, Ukraine

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine

Mykhailo Kotsiubinsky Vinnytsia State Pedagogical University, Ukraine

A contrastive psycholinguistic study of the British emotional concept `envy' and Ukrainian `zazdrist'': particularities of phraseological objectification

Kostiantyn Mizin

Liudmyla Slavova

Oleksandr Petrov

Abstract

The article focuses on exploring the phraseological objectification of the “sinful” emotional concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ in the remotely related lingual cultures (British and Ukrainian). To identify common and distinctive senses of these concepts (1) the range of the concepts that closely correlate to the discussed emotional concepts was defined and (2) the system of conceptual metaphors representing these concepts was revealed. The material involves 253 phraseological units (PUs) that denote envy in the English language and 309 PUs in Ukrainian. The material is selected from authoritative explanatory, bilingual and phraseological dictionaries. The contrastive research of the concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ that correlate with other ethical and emotional concepts (e.g.: GRATITUDE, KINDNESS, VIRTUE, HONOUR) makes it possible to speak about the concurrence of fundamental moral values and attitudes in Christian cultures. Moreover, the concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ figure prominently in the hierarchy of values (“white” envy) vs. disvalues (“black” envy) of the contrasted lingual cultures. The conceptual metaphors provide the concept ENVY with the meanings that are considered to be specific for the lingual culture under study. Our findings show that despite the universal character of envy both as an emotion and a feeling, it is permanently affected by ethnic and socio-cultural factors that provide the concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ with specific lingual cultural meanings. It is noteworthy that the study of the PUs can reveal only the traditional (fixed) understanding of envy. Therefore, to detect the changes in the modern priorities of the British and Ukrainians, it is necessary for prospective research to compare the results of the language material (lexicographic and phraseographic resources) with the results of analysis of actual language data, i.e. psycholinguistic experiments, sociolinguistic monitoring, language corpora.

Keywords: emotion, lingual cultural concept, conceptual metaphor, phraseological objectification.

Мізін Костянтин, Славова Людмила, Петров Олександр

Британський емоційний концепт ENVY та український ЗАЗДРІСТЬ у зіставному аспекті: особливості фразеологічної об'єктивації.

Анотація

phraseological objectification linguistic culture

Пропонована стаття присвячена аналізу фразеологічної об'єктивації “гріховних” концептів брит. ENVY та укр. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ у віддаленоспоріднених лінгвокультурах (британській та українській). Із метою виявлення спільних і відмінних смислів цих концептів (1) установлено коло їхніх концептів-корелятів та (2) визначено систему концептних метафор, які репрезентують досліджувані емоційні концепти. Фактичним матеріалом слугували 253 ФО на позначення заздрості в англійській та 309 ФО в українській мовах. Вибірка матеріалу здійснена з авторитетних тлумачних, двомовних і фразеологічних словників. Зіставне вивчення кореляції концептів ENVY і ЗАЗДРІСТЬ з іншими етико-емоційними концептами (напр., ВДЯЧНІСТЬ, ДОБРОЗИЧЛИВІСТЬ, ДОБРОЧЕСНІСТЬ, ЧЕСТЬ) дає змогу стверджувати про збіг у християнських культурах базових моральних цінностей і настанов, а також про те, що концепт ЗАЗДРІСТЬ займає чільне місце в ієрархії цінностей (“біла” заздрість) vs. антицінностей (“чорна” заздрість) зіставлюваних мовних етносів. Установлено, що, незважаючи на універсальність заздрості як емоції і почуття, на неї перманентно впливають етно- та соціокультурні чинники, які наповнюють концепти ENVY і ЗАЗДРІСТЬ специфічними для зіставлюваних лінгвокультур смислами. Прикметно, що вивчення ФО може спряти розкриттю лише традиційних (усталених) уявлень про заздрість. Тому для виявлення змін у сучасних пріоритетах британців і українців потрібно у перспективі порівняти результати аналізу мовного матеріалу (лексикографічні та фразеографічні джерела) з результатами аналізу мовленнєвих (актуальних) даних (психолінгвістичні експерименти, соціолінгвістичні моніторинги, мовні корпуси тощо).

Ключові слова: емоція, лінгвокультурний концепт, концептна метафора, фразеологічна об 'єктивація.

Introduction

From the very beginning of its sociologization, people have been permanently struggling with their weaknesses - pride, greed (stinginess), lust (profligacy), anger, gluttony, envy (jealousy) and laziness. Christianity defines these weaknesses as cardinal sins, so long as they are the most dangerous and tempting for a man on the way to God. Therefore, human sins have ceased to be exceptionally theological or philosophical problems. At present, when interdisciplinary approach to a human basic nature is being applied on a large scale, human “sinful” weaknesses are in the focus of researchers in psychological, sociological sciences and cultural anthropology (see, e.g.: Breslav, 2004; Bucher, 2012; Dyson, 2006; Epstein, 2003; Foster, 1972; Lindholm, 2008).

Psychologists focus on the emotional nature of human sins since almost all of them were once formed as emotions caused by survival instincts that ensured the adaptation of an individual in a team, contributed to his / her survival in the harshest conditions of collective co-operation and did not let the inner “I” disappear. It means that “sinful” emotions were unique regulators of social relations throughout the history of human development being an individual's reaction to the external, mainly “hostile” world. At the same time, not only “their” groups of one or different societies can be perceived as “hostile”, but also “our” groups (relatives / close people) because there is a sharp competition within them (see, e.g.: Smith, 1991; Van de Ven, 2009; Van de Ven et al., 2009).

In the process of sociologization, “sinful” emotions have turned into corresponding human qualities or character traits, which in European linguo-cultures have the axiological labelling that ranges from “very negative” to “neutral” or even “positive” in spite of the common Christian heritage. At the same time, the degree of negativity a human society endows human vices with is determined by those value orientations and priorities that are dominant at a certain stage of the society development. For instance, nowadays the Germans perceive stinginess more positively than the British, Ukrainians or Russians, and greediness is not such a great evil for practical Americans (see, e.g.: Mizin & Petrov, 2017).

The peculiarities of the cardinal sins perception by various linguo-cultures caught the scientists' attention with the spread of Cogni tive Linguistics, where much attention is paid to the analysis of emotional concepts (see, e.g.: Kovecses, 1990; Mizin & Letiucha, 2019; Mizin & Ovsiienko, 2020; Oster, 2012; Panasenko, 2012; Schwarz-Friesel, 2015; Soriano, 2015; Wierzbicka, 1992), and of “sinful” ones, in particular (see, e.g.: Matiova, 2019; Ogarkova, 2007). In its turn, Cognitive Linguistics has become a basis for the development of a wide range of culturally - oriented linguistic disciplines. Here, first of all, Cultural Linguistics and its postSoviet version - Linguoculturology should be mentioned, for which the study of “sinful” emotional concepts is of a great interest (see, e.g.: Malahova, 2011; Mizin, 2018; Serhiyenko, 2015; Wilson & Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, 2017).

Within Linguoculturology a new post-Soviet “autochthonous” discipline - Contrastive Linguoculturology has received development over a couple of decades (Drobakha, 2019, p. 294; Mizin & Ovsiienko, 2020, p. 144-145). Its appearance has purely methodological reasons: a part of linguoculturologists realized the scientific unreliability of results and conclusions of monolingual linguoculturological studies, because statements about linguistic and cultural peculiarities of a certain linguo-culture are considered more valid if the latter is being compared with other ones.

The basic epistemological unit in Contrastive Linguoculturology is a complex mental construct - a linguo-cultural concept, which is defined as “the main cluster of culture in the human consciousness” (Stepanov, 1997, p. 40). Studying the cardinal sins as linguo-cultural concepts, including the concept ENVY, can help in determining relevant data concerning value orientations and priorities in a certain linguo-society as well as identifying trends towards changes of value priorities in the modern European linguo-cultures, for social and economic processes in Europe nowadays have great impact on people's lives and lead to an increasing inequality in societies, they activate envious attitude towards both a person and a group of people.

The nature of envy has recently been the subject of a heated debate. Some researchers see envy as a complex, yet a unitary construct that, despite being hostile in nature, can lead to both hostile and non-hostile reactions. Others offer a dual approach to envy, in which envy's outcomes reflect two types of envy: benign envy, involving upward motivation, and malicious envy, involving hostility against superiority of others (Crusius et al., 2020, p. 4). Envy is often understood as an inimical, hostile attitude to other person's success, popularity, moral superiority or dominance. The reasons for the emergence of envy have common grounds: objective and subjective contradictions in the interaction of individuals and society. These contradictions arise in the processes of one's comparing him / herself with others, provoking inflation of one's own merits and hyperbolizing the benefits of another person, which generates intolerance to the success of other people (Lange et al., 2018; Protasi, 2016; Sawada & Fujii, 2016; van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2015).

Method

The methodology of Contrastive Linguoculturology is now being formed and needs improving as long as it has “inherited” the methodological inconsistences of Linguoculturology where scientifically adequate analytical tools have not yet been developed (Mizin et al., 2019, p. 54). Especially it concerns such an epistemological construct as a concept, because its study requires a large range of research procedures known as “conceptual analysis”, which has not been properly defined yet (Mizin & Ovsiienko, 2020, p. 148). The indeterminacy of this notion is primarily due to the fact that the analysis of a linguo-cultural concept requires the use of various methods of traditional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and other disciplines. Therefore, conceptual analysis is not a well-defined research procedure, such as definitional, etymological or contextual ones, but it is a comprehensive methodology that covers a range of procedures. To represent a phraseological objectification of linguo-cultural concepts is one of the steps of conceptual analysis.

Culture occupies a prominent place in language studies, for culture and language are inextricably linked. Methodologically relevant in this context is the idea that language, particularly its lexicon, is a reflection of a human conceptual system, which makes it possible to reveal the complex structure of emotional concepts through the analysis of conventionalized linguistic expressions (such as metaphors, metonymies, idioms, cliches, proverbs, collocations, etc.). This structure is studied on four levels: 1) a system of conceptual metonymies associated with the emotional concept, in which the physiological or behavioural effects stand for the emotion; 2) a system of conceptual metaphors associated with the emotional concept; 3) a range of concepts related to the emotional concept; 4) a prototypical cognitive model that works (with certain variations) for all emotions and consists of five phases: Cause (Danger) ^ Emotion (Fear) ^ Attempt at Control ^ Loss of Control ^ Behavioural Response (Flight) (Kovecses, 1990, p. 41).

The purpose of the given study is to determine the peculiarities of the phraseological objectification of the “sinful” concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ in the remotely related (British and Ukrainian) linguo-cultures. Due to the limitations concerning the article size, common and distinctive senses of the concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ are defined on two of four levels, mentioned above, which involves (1) determining the range of the concepts, which closely correlate to the emotional concepts under study and (2) revealing the system of conceptual metaphors that represent the latter ones.

Defining the features of the phraseological objectification of the concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ is a methodologically important step that makes it possible to identify changes in the value contents of these concepts, since the PUs represent a certain understanding of envy, which is considered as fixed (traditional) in a definite language, because PUs express very clearly value norms of every linguo- culture (see, e.g: Piirainen, 2012; Piirainen, 2016). The next step, which can be regarded as a perspective study of the concepts under analysis, should include the definition of contemporary meanings of envy on the basis of, for instance, psycholinguistic experiments or language corpora data. The comparative study of phraseological and contemporary meanings can reveal an objective understanding of changes that occur in the minds of the representatives of European linguo-cultures as to the perception of “sinful” concepts, ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ in particular.

Materials

The material involves 253 PUs that denote envy in the English language and 309 PUs in Ukrainian. The material is selected from authoritative explanatory, bilingual and phraseological dictionaries (Barantsev, 2005; DPUU, 2003; OdEP, 1970; ODP, 2004; PDP, 2000; PDU, 1999; Stone, 2006; Wilkinson, 2002). It is worth emphasizing that the sample is made according to a broad understanding of the scope of phraseology, in conformity with which the nucleus of the latter is formed by completely reconsidered PUs, first of all idioms, and the periphery includes partially reconsidered PUs, in particular paremias. It is remarkable that the correlation between idioms and paremias in our sample is disproportionate, as paremias make 68.3% of English units, and 74.7% of Ukrainian ones. It may be explained in the following way: ENVY is a moral and ethical concept, and values are mostly represented in paremias.

Concerning the notion “British” it should be noted that in contrastive studies it is considered methodologically correct to compare only those lingual units, phenomena and structures, which can be theoretically (i.e. in principle) comparable. It can also be applied to the sample of the actual material: if two European linguo-cultures are compared - the British and Ukrainian - then the sample should be made mainly from dictionaries of the British version of the English language. Otherwise, if a large selection is made, that is using dictionaries, e.g. the Australian and New Zealand versions of the English language, a logical question arises whether European linguo - cultures are really being compared.

Results and discussion

It was ancient Greeks who began to differentiate between “white” (competitive) and “black” (destructive) envy. However, Christianity did not share this dual approach of the Greeks to envy, as in early Christianity jealousy was considered a significant threat to the life of a believer, as evidenced by its categorical condemnation in the ancient writings of early Christian authors, the apostles (authors of canonical and apocryphal texts), the apostolic fathers and Christian apologists. They considered envy to be the worst sin and the most destructive passion because enviers punish and torture themselves and they never get rid of this sin. The British closely associate envy with immortality, e.g.: Envy never dies; The envious die, but envy never.

The exceptional depravity of this emotion is proved by the fact that Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) put the envy in the list of cardinal sins in the third position. But even before that, St. Augustine (354-430), describing life as a creative force, stressed that jealousy is a destructive force, which can be illustrated with the English paremia Envy feeds on the living. Cyprian of Cartagena (210-258) proclaimed envy the root of all evil - radix est malorum omnimum. Envy was forbidden in ancient moral code, i.e. the Ten Commandments of Moses. The English PU to break the tenth commandment is a linguo-culturally illustrative example related to the tenth commandment which means `to envy'. Euphemism of this PU proves that the British, unlike the Ukrainians tend to hide this human drawback. The correctness of this idea can be proved by the fact that the British are declined to hide their emotions: both negative and positive ones (Kobozeva, 1995; Komova, 2010). That is why, the emotions, particularly the negative ones do not have their lingual denominations in English (Mizin et al., 2019, p. 64).

It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament the concept of envy is hardly ever found and is only seen in such phrases as an eye envies, an envious eye, worth of envy, black vs. white envy. On the other hand, in the New Testament there are numerous mentions of envy (or jealousy). Here the evangelical moral doctrine objects to the ancient virtues and competitive spirit indicating that for a Christian any desire to compete is immoral because passion for competition and rivalry provoke envy, strife, slander, and evil suspicions. It is worth mentioning that in British and Ukrainian linguo-cultures it is servants of God who are characterized by extraordinary envy, e.g.: Eng. No envy like a monk's; Ukr. очі як у попа `envious eyes' (lit. “eyes like a cassock's”).

Meanings of the concept ENVY, motivated by religion as sinful, are absolutely negative in both linguo-cultures. Since the very beginning of Christianity, in different linguo-ethnic groups of the territory of modern Europe, there has been an intensified tendency to conceal all kinds of evil emotions (feeling). Christian understanding of the latter reduced positive meaning of “white” - evolutionary - envy. It is clear that axiological scale of “sinful” concepts, particularly the concept ENVY, is not the same in European linguo-cultures because, first, the latter ones do not have the same level of secularity. Second, the understanding of envy is “affected” by some differences in the worldview of representatives of different linguo-societies that directly influence the ratio of positive and negative meanings of the analysed concept. Thus, the British “island psychology” (see, e.g.: Kobozeva, 1995; Moiseev & Gicheva, 2009) was the basis for a well-known British emotional restraint. The latter is the reason for the restraint of emotional world of the British where the principle of politeness makes them, to some extent, not only hide negative emotions, jealousy in particular, but also positive ones. While for the Ukrainian linguo-society, especially in the past, a connection between moral and ethical concepts of SIN and SHAME was linguo- culturally significant (Vdovychenko, 2015), which affected the interpretation of envy, e.g.: Заздрі очі не знають сорому (lit. “Envious eyes do not know what shame is”).

Envy is an emotional reaction generated by social comparison (Alicke, & Zell, 2008; Feather & Nairn, 2005; Vrabel et al., 2018). Accordingly, there is no specific analogue of envy both in the nature and social life, i.e. there are people who experience a feeling of envy. This feeling requires communication involving at least two individuals, and, as the social experience proves, the number of those who participate in the situation generated by envy can grow in finitely because in practice envy turns out to be a socio-psychological phenomenon. Sometimes envy, to an individual or even an entire social group, is a value orientation, social guidance, which can be found in a special type of social behaviour.

Anthropologists and psychologists argue that envy is an anthropological property of people and is closely related to their social life (Kutter, 1998; Schoeck, 2008; Takahashi et al., 2009). Moreover, it is a “basic anthropological category” (Kutter, 1998, p. 71), which emerges in childhood and early adolescence. As human history shows, eliminating envy as an emotion and feeling is practically impossible because this emotion is a part of human genes taking an important part in human evolution as it results from competition for limited resources. It is noteworthy that envy as well as jealousy, love, hate, respect, contempt, compassion, etc. belong to a number of moral feelings that allow people directly, without hesitation, evaluate events ethically and act morally (Vorkachev, 1998, p. 39). Envy, just like jealousy, love and hate, is closely related to a desirative assessment, i.e. a desire to get an item to influence it. Linguo-culturally relevant in this sense is the English PU (8) smth. gives smb. no rest, which, besides the semantics of different feelings, jealousy in particular, can mean an obsessive desire, which shows a specific connection between the concepts ENVY and DESIRE in the British linguo-culture.

There is a duality in the assessments of both envy and love: 1) negative (belonging to the seven cardinal sins); 2) positive (envy stimulates to some extent a person's creativity and his / her social activity). That is, on the one hand, envy is strongly condemned together with ambition and vanity by which it is generated in the caste-structured communities (this is the question of incompatibility with the commandments of Christian humility which excludes any need for competition) ; on the other hand, envy seems to be a constant companion of any egalitarianism and is stimulated by consumption orientation of society. Therefore, in the community, characterized by social mobility, where there is a spirit of competition and a sense of rivalry, envy can be a positive expression of success motivation which was typical of both ancient times and today. Between positive and negative dimensions of envy there is only a thin boundary because a need for competition which could turn into jealousy any time and focus on consuming, i.e. the greed, which is proved by the analysis of the factual material, where many British and Ukrainian PUs show a blurred difference between these emotions, e.g.: Eng. the devil looking over Lincoln `inveterate critic; envious or jealous person'; Covetousness is always filling a bottomless vessel `envy has big eyes'; Cast no greedy eye at another man's pie `be not envious and greedy'; Ukr. Що на людях видно, то й собі жадно `envy has big eyes' (lit. “One is greedy for the things that others have”).

The given examples demonstrate the close interrelation of semantics of envy and jealousy, on the one hand, and of envy and greed, on the other.

The range of the concepts that closely correlate with the concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ

Most closely the concept ENVY is connected to the concept JEALOUSY because these emotions (moral feelings) are characterized by a dual desire of “to take” and “to keep”. These emotions are related so closely that they can be easily used interchangeably. Moreover, by experiencing these emotions a person has the same psychosomatic and physiological processes (increased heartbeat, loss of appetite, intense bile, skin and whites of the eyes yellowing, etc.). Psychosomatic reactions of envy and jealousy largely depend on individual peculiarities of the subject who is experiencing them, and on the particular situation where one of the emotions predominates that accompanies envy an d jealousy, including discomfort (anxiety), sorrow (sadness), nuisance (self-torture), hatred and anger (fury, rage) (Petiak, 2020, p. 141).

Particularly unclear is the boundary between the British concepts ENVY and JEALOUSY, e.g.: the green-eyed monster `envy / jealousy'; wear yellow hose (stockings / breeches) `be envious or jealous'. Even dictionaries sometimes do not clearly explain what semantics is rendered by English PUs - envy or jealousy, e.g.: jealous as three Bartelmy dolls in a wicker basket `very envious / jealous'. In these cases, it makes sense to interpret PUs linguo-culturologically which includes the inner form demotivation of the latter (Shapran, 2015, p. 130). Finding a cognitive script which formed the basis of the PU's inner form allows us to claim that this PU conveys the semantics of envy: Bartholomew's fair was the main fabric fair in London; it was held annually on August 24 the day on St. Bartholomew's day. Probably the goods at this fair were of high -quality and expensive as the envy of those who did not have such goods to those who could afford such a luxury.

Sometimes etymology- and linguo-culturological analysis does not allow revealing PU's inner form, such as PU the devil looking over Lincoln `inveterate critic; envious / jealous person'. Obviously, this means the devil statue at Lincoln College, Oxford, which was dismounted in 1731. If it is so, the PU mentioned above carries the semantics of envy rather than that of jealousy because this semantics may be based on the assumption that the mentioned devil could envy Lincoln cathedral spire which was higher than 520 feet (ibid., p. 131).

English and Ukrainian native speakers' naive picture of the world consider jealousy to be a companion of love because this feeling makes its positive energy (cf. Eng. PU keep a jealous eye on `to guard jealously, to worry about someone or something') as well as its negative one focus on close, particularly intimate relationships between people, i.e. intimate partners, friends, parents and the like. Envy has a much wider range of influence, because it concentrates its negative energy on both material and non-material goods. Furthermore, envy can be focused on strangers, when a person envies someone's appearance. Since envy is defined as “jealousy of social comparison” which is understood as a desire for excellence (superiority) in any respect (Salovey & Rodin, 1984, p. 781), this caused the kind of envy that cannot tolerate (hate) any superiority in the British linguo-culture, e.g.: Envy can abide no excellency. Nevertheless, envy is a constant companion of any superiority, e.g.: Envy shoots at the fairest mark; Things most excellent are ever most envied. In this context it is worth mentioning that the English adjective excellent can convey semantics of superiority. This is due to the fact that envy grows and rises; it constantly grows along with the growth of claims on heritage - in childhood an object of envy is usually a variety of toys, in adolescence it is clothing, a bicycle or a computer, in high school these include looks, good scores and first love, in adult life it may be a car, a house, a boat or yacht, etc. - and increases along with the career growth.

An oppositional correlate to the concept ENVY in both linguo-cultures is the concept BENEVOLENCE, which is confirmed by the analysis of English and Ukrainian PUs, e.g.: Eng. Envy is what inclines up to speak evil of the virtuous rather than of the wicked. Researchers claim that basic moral values and guidelines coincide in Christian cultures: pride is opposed to humility, deception to honesty, anger to forgiveness, greed to generosity, etc. These values are universal so they form the connection in relationships between different nations which unite them. It should be noted that in the British linguo-culture there are two more concepts opposing envy, which are VIRTUE and HONOUR, e.g.: Envy is the companion of honour; Four good mothers beget four bad daughters: great, contempt; truth, hatred; virtue, envy; riches, ignorance.

The concept ENVY has a close semantic connection virtually with all the “sinful” concepts. The correlation of this concept to the concept ANGER (or MALICE) is illustrative of both linguo-cultures compared, e.g.: Eng. Envy is what inclines up to speak evil of the virtuous rather than of the wicked; Ukr. a. Злий плаче від заздрості, а добрий від жалю (lit. “An evil person cries because of envy, a good-hearted one cries because of sorrow”); Залізо іржа з'їдає, а заздрий від злості погибає (lit. “Iron is destroyed by rust and an envious person dies of anger”).

This is related to the fact that envious people bring all sorts of troubles to an object of envy, often wishing them death. In this regard there can be mentioned the English PU-curse, which conveys the state of envious people's hatred for others: Could drown you in a spoonful of water! Thomas Aquinas accurately studied reactions of envious people in this type of envy: the envy generates hostility, resentment, malevolence, hatred and slanders. This means that from ancient times to the present day, mankind has interpreted envy as an emotion that is largely associated with evil intentions.

Powerless anger of an envious person (loser) causes great suffering. Such people are hurt when others possess more than them and their main mistake is looking for

the source of their pain in others, not in themselves. Thomas Aquinas considered this kind of envy to be a pathology, feeling surprised that someone can feel pain about what is expected to please. Therefore, ancient Greeks clearly understood how this type of envy “corrodes” the man. It is noteworthy that the correlation between the concept ENVY and the concept SUFFERING is relevant for both Ukrainian and British linguo-cultures, e.g.: Ukr. стояти кісткою в горлі `prevent someone from doing something; make someone feel concerned; make somebody feel envious' (lit. “to stand like a bone in the throat”). Anger, sadness and sorrow of an envious person grows with the happiness of the object of envy, e.g.: Eng. Envy is the companion of felicity; Ukr. Чуже щастя спати не дає (lit. “Someone's happiness prevents someone from sleeping”).

A similar situation can be traced back to the positive concept of “success”: the more successful a person is, the more capacities he shows, the more envy it causes, e.g.: Eng. Envy is the companion offelicity. It has become normal in modern society to envy those who are successful. If a person is not envied, it can only mean that the person is a hopeless loser to be only sympathized with. The analysis of the material proves the following: in both linguo-societies the concepts ENVY and SUCCESS, and JEALOUSY and PITY have a close semantic relation, e.g.: Eng. a. It is better when people are jealous of your success than sorry for you; Better be envied than pitied; Ukr. a. Людям на заздрість, а нам на користь (lit. “It is better to let people envy and to have one own profit”); Краще викликати до себе заздрість, ніж жалість (lit. “It is better to be envied than pitied”). It is British linguo-culture only where envy is related to the concepts that directly correlate with success: PRAISE, CELEBRITY and FLATTERING, e.g.: Eng. a. Envy is a kind of praise; The dog of envy barks at celebrity; Envy is the sincerest form offlattering.

Relevant conceptual metaphors that represent the concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ

In cross-cultural studies, dedicated to the analysis of emotional concepts, the following common types of concept metaphors are distinguished: 1) EMOTION IS SOMETHING INSIDE THE BODY; 2) EMOTION IS A FORCE (subtypes: a) EMOTION IS AN ANTAGONIST; b) EMOTION IS AN AUTONOMOUS FORCE; c) EMOTION IS AN AUTONOMOUS BEING, THOUGH STILL PART OF THE PERSON); 3) EMOTION IS AN ILLNESS / INSANITY; 4) EMOTION IS AN OBJECT; 5) EMOTION IS A PLACE / A CONTAINER (see, e.g.: Oster, 2010). The analysis of the phraseological material made it possible to single out eight concept metaphors within these subtypes that represent the concepts ENVY and ЗАЗДРІСТЬ: 1) ENVY IS A COMPETITOR; 2) ENVY IS A NEIGHBOUR; 3) ENVY IS AN ENEMY; 4) ENVY IS AN INSATIABLE CREATURE; 5) ENVY IS A WATCHFUL CREATURE; 6) ENVY IS A YELLOW / GREEN-EYED CREATURE; 7) ENVY IS A COMPANION OF THE RICH; 8) ENVY IS A BLIND CREATURE (Table 1).

Table 1. Relevant Conceptual Metaphors That Represent the Concepts ENVY & ЗАЗДРІСТЬ

(8) A BLIND Envy is blind g CREATURE

Comments on the cognitive basis of the conceptual metaphors mentioned in the table:

ENVY IS A COMPETITOR: Representatives of any ethnic and territorial, social and political, religious groups as well as those who are united by one business, i.e. people close in origin, likeness, age, talent, residence, glory and mansion can feel envious. “Competitive” envy that arises on ethnic, religious, professional, so cial and caste, and the like bases can provoke those who envy to reject the very foundations of society. Out of fear they envy those who are close to them and for this reason some ideas cannot be implemented, discoveries are hampered. So envy takes a deterrent function in an individual's development. An individual who is envious realizing the impossibility to compete with or prevail over a rival concentrates on their own flaws feeling depressed, humiliated, helpless and hopeless. To “relieve” this humiliati on the individual does not improve himself but seeks to humiliate the opponent resorting to malicious slander, gossip, success distortion, impairing or even ignoring his merits which prove the stagnation in the development of his personality. The analysis of phraseological material makes it possible to trace linguo-cultural contrast of meaning content in the concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ as only in the British linguo-society the conceptual metaphor ENVY IS A COMPETITOR is commonly found, represented by the cognitive feature “envy among peers” (Table 1, row 1(1)).

ENVY IS A NEIGHBOUR: Native speakers' language consciousness in the compared languages quite clearly demonstrates a so-called “social envy proximity phenomenon” (Schoeck, 2008, p. 40). It concerns the closeness between people which often causes envy. The intensity of envy depends largely on how often an envious person meets the object of envy in everyday life (Ulich & Mayring, 1992). It is clear that the closer a person is (colleague, neighbour, friend / girlfriend, etc.), the oftener an envious person feels envy. It may be assumed that nei ghbours are the closest strangers, so the image of a neighbour as the biggest envious person is obviously universal in the European linguo-cultures (Table 1, row 1(2)).

ENVY IS AN ENEMY: People by their nature have more or less equal capabilities which create equality in their hope to achieve the goal. A desire to have the same makes people enemies and makes them destroy or subdue one another. People seek to be appreciated as highly as they appreciate themselves. The presence of competition, lack of confidence, fame and desire are the main reasons for hostility. Remarkably, envy is associated with the enemy only by the British (Table 1, row 1(3)).

ENVY IS A WATCHFUL CREATURE: An envious person seeks mainly what he sees, so naive representatives of the British and Ukrainian linguo-cultures imagine envious people with a specific evil eye and keen eyesight to notice every detail of the object of envy (Table 1, row 2(5)/(a)). Only Ukrainian envy is associated with a hostile look (Table 1, row 2(5)/(b)). The analysis of phraseological material has revealed the fact that envy often sees everything in non -objective perspective and in the light of their greedy nature which is proved by English and Ukrainian paremias (Table 1, row 2(5)/(c)). This means that envy is generated not by objective differences between people but emerges from subjective perception, which has a special “optics” of envy, i.e. an envious person sees only what stirs up his envy. That is why “in all cultures it is considered not only a good manner but almost a mandatory rule of behaviour never to talk to others about their preferences (their superiority), new acquisitions or luck, remembering failures, deficiencies or lack of something” (Schoeck, 2008, p. 40).

ENVY IS A YELLOW / GREEN-EYED CREATURE: The emotion of envy stimulates physiological processes in the human body including intensive secretion of bile which provides envious eyes with a yellowish or greenish shade (Table 1, row 2(6)/(a)). It should be mentioned that only in the British linguo-society there exists the PU to look through green glasses (Table 1, row 2(6)/(b)).

ENVY IS A BLIND CREATURE: The British endow envy with blindness (Table 1, row 3). The cognitive basis of this concept metaphor is the fact that firstly, the emotion of envy may cause disease to all people despite their status, sex, nationality etc. and secondly, envy may be directed to everybody, even to the closest people (children are envious of parents, parents - of children, a brother - of a brother, a sister - of a sister and the kind).

Conclusions

The analysis of phraseological objectification of the “sinful” emotional concepts Brit. ENVY and Ukr. ЗАЗДРІСТЬ enables to state that envy, like other sinful human weaknesses, is perceived in the religious context as a person's character trait or sin. However, modern psychology offers a wider understanding of envy, because it is as an emotion (a priori inherent in a human being; it belongs to the instincts of survival) and a feeling (phenotypic expression; state of psychophysiological experience), and an option of behaviour. As well as moral feelings in general, envy is characterized by an extremely complex nature, and it is distinguished by the dual direction of the desire to “take” and “keep”. This fact is characteristic of je alousy, therefore in certain situations, envy can transform into jealousy, and jealousy becomes envy. The semantic interlacing of the latter is so tight, that some PUs in the English language have both meanings of envy and jealousy.

The contrastive study of the correlation of the concept ENVY with other ethical and emotional concepts proved its close connection with a range of other emotional concepts (e.g.: GRATITUDE, KINDNESS, VIRTUE, HONOUR), which allowed to claim that there exists a concurrence of fundamental moral values and attitudes in Christian cultures, moreover, the concept ЗАЗДРІСТЬ occupies a leading position in the hierarchy of values (“white” envy) vs. antivalues (“black” envy) of compared linguo-societies. At the same time, it is elicited that envy is permanently influenced by ethnic and sociocultural factors despite the universality of envy as an emotion and feeling, which is proved on the basis of phraseological objectification of the most common conceptual metaphors that represent the concept of ENVY in British and Ukrainian linguo-cultures. The conceptual metaphors provide the concept ENVY with the meanings that are considered to be specific for the compared linguo-cultures.

It is worth emphasizing that the conclusion is based on the analysis of the phraseological material, which includes traditional (fixed) understanding of envy by a linguo-culture. This conception has been formed for centuries and accumulated in PUs. Lexicographers and phraseographers single out, as a rule, only the most common PUs for each stage of development of a linguo-society and “sift” what is occasional (individual). Consequently, the analysis of PUs cannot provide full information about the values and the value priorities of the linguo-society. Particularly it concerns modern changes in such priorities. To detect these changes, it is necessary, as it was mentioned before, to compare the results of the language material (lexicographic and phraseographic resources) with the results of analysis of actual language data (psycholinguistic experiments, sociolinguistic monitoring, linguistic corpora etc.). For example, simple inquiries with the help of Sketch Engine make it possible to find out that fear (feared) is a frequency left collocate of envy as a verbal lemma in EnTenTen13, a weep - nominal lemma, e.g.: weep with envy (Sketch Engine, 2020). Of course, in this article the full list of conceptual metaphors that represent concept ENVY may be called into question because there are at least two other metaphors for the British linguo-culture: ENVY is FEAR and ENVY is WEEPING. However, in this case the contemporary meanings of the concepts under study, and eliciting the actual meanings of the latter are the purpose of our further investigation.

References

1. Alicke, M.D. & Zell, E. (2008). Social Comparison and Envy. In R.H. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and Research (pp. 73-116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Бреслав Г.М. Психология эмоций. М.: Смысл & Академия, 2004.

3. Bucher, A. (2012). Geiz, Tragheit, Neid & Co. in Therapie und Seelsorge: Psychologie der 7 Todsunden. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

4. Crusius, J., Gonzalez, M. F., Lange, J., & Cohen-Charash, Y. (2020). Envy: An Adversarial Review and Comparison of Two Competing Views. Emotion Review, 12(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919873131.

5. Drobakha, L. (2019). Besonderheiten der semantischen Realisierung der Worter im Schaffen der indoeuropaischen Volker. Analele Universitafii din Craiova, Seria pnnlc Filologice, Lingvistica, XLI(1-2), 294-307.

6. Dyson, M. (2006). Pride: The Seven Deadly Sins. New York: Oxford University Press.

7. Epstein, J. (2003). Envy. New York: Oxford University Press.

8. Feather, N. T., & Nairn, K. (2005). Resentment, Envy, Schadenfreude, and Sympathy: Effects of Own and Other's Deserved or Undeserved Status. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 87102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530500048672.

9. Foster, G.M. (1972). The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior. Current Anthropology, 13, 165-202.

10. Кобозева И.М. Немец, англичанин, француз и русский: выявление стереотипов национальных характеров через анализ коннотаций этнонимов. Вестник Московского государственного университета, 1995. Т. 9, № 3. С. 102-117.

11. Комова Т.А. Введение в сопоставительную лингвокультурологию. Великобритания - Россия. М.: Макс Пресс, 2010.

12. Kovecses, Z. (1990). Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer.

13. Куттер П. Любовь, ненависть, зависть, ревность. Психоанализ страстей. СПб.: Б.С.К., 1998.

14. Lange, J., Weidman, A.C., & Crusius, J. (2018). The Painful Duality of Envy: Evidence for an Integrative Theory and a Meta-analysis on the Relation of Envy and Schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 572-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000118.

15. Lindholm, C. (2008). Culture and Envy. In R.H. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and Research (pp. 227-244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16. Matiova, M. (2019). Cognitive Analysis of the Concept of ENVY as an Interpretative Construct of Slovak Lingual and Cultural Society. In M. Matiova & M. Navratil (Eds.), A Reflection of Man and Culture in Language and Literature (pp. 81-105). Berlin et al.: Peter Lang.

17. Малахова С.А. Личностно-эмоциональные концепты «гордость» и «стыд» в русской и английской лингвокультурах. Армавир: РИЦ АГПА, 2011.

18. Мизин К. Изменение ценностных приоритетов в современных европейских лингвокультурах: морально-этический концепт ГОРДОСТЬ. Opera Slavica, 2018. Т. 28, № 4. С. 5-33. https://doi.org/10.5817/OS2018-4-1.

19. Mizin, K., & Letiucha, L. (2019). The linguo-cultural concept Torschlusspanik as the representative of ethno-specific psycho-emotional state of Germans. Психолінгвістика. Психолингвистика. Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797- 2019-25-2-234-249.

20. Mizin, K., Letiucha, L., & Petrov, O. (2019). Deutsche linguokulturelle Konzepte im Lichte der germanisch-ostslawischen Kontraste: Methode zur Feststellung von spezifischen bzw. einzigartigen Bedeutungen. Germanoslavica, 30(1), 49-70.

21. Mizin, K., & Ovsiienko, L. (2020). The German Linguo-cultural Concept SCHADENFREUDE in Cross-cultural Perspective: A Corpus-based Approach. Lege Artis. Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, V(1), 143-184.

22. Mizin, K., & Petrov, O. (2017). Metaphorical Modelling of Cognitive Structure of the Concept STINGINESS in British, German, Ukrainian and Russian Linguo-cultures. Przeglqd Wschodnioeuropejski, 8(1), 219-226.

23. Моисеев М.В., Гичева Н.Г. Сопоставительная лингвокультурология английского и русского языков. Омск: ОГУ, 2009.

24. Ogarkova, A. (2007). Green-eyed Monsters: A Corpus-based Study of the Concepts of ENVY and JEALOUSY in Modern English. metaphorik.de, 13, 87-147.

25. Oster, U. (2010). Using Corpus Methodology for Semantic and Pragmatic Analyses: What Can Corpora Tell Us about the Linguistic Expression of Emotions? Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 727-763. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.023.

26. Oster, U. (2012). “Angst” and “Fear” in Contrast: A Corpus-based Analysis of Emotion Concepts. In M. Brdar, I. Raffaelli, & M. Zic Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics between Universality and Variation (pp. 327-355). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

27. Panasenko, N. (2012). Linguistic Markers of Emotional Concept LOVE in Literary Texts. US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1067-1084.

28. Petiak, O. (2020). Associative and Gender Aspects of the Emotional Concept of “Jealousy” in the Ukrainian Linguistic Culture. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 7(1), 140-146. https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2020.7.1.pet.

29. Piirainen, E. (2012). Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond. Toward a Lexicon of Common Figurative Units, vol. 1. New York: Peter Lang.

30. Piirainen, E. (2016). Lexicon of Common Figurative Units. Widespread Idioms in Europe and Beyond, vol. 2. New York: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b10457.

31. Protasi, S. (2016). Varieties of Envy. Philosophical Psychology, 29, 535-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2015.1115475.

32. Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some Antecedents and Consequences of Social-comparison Jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 780-792.

33. Sawada, M., & Fujii, T. (2016). Do Envious People Show Better Performance? Focusing on the Function of Benign Envy as Personality Trait. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 87, 198-204. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.87.15316.

34. Шёк Г. Зависть: теория социального поведения. М.: ИРИСЭН, 2008.

35. Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2015). Language and Emotion. The Cognitive Linguistic Perspective. In U. Ludke (Ed.), Emotion in Language (pp. 157-173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

36. Сергієнко В.Л. Лінгвокультурні концепти PRIDE і NOBILITY у британській мовній картині світу: дис ... канд. філол. наук: 10.02.04. Івано-Франківськ, 2015. 245 с.

37. Шапран Н.В. Семантико-когнітивна структура концепту ЗАЗДРІСТЬ у лінгвокультурологічному висвітленні: дис ... канд. філол. наук: 10.02.15. Одеса, 2015. 197 с.

38. Sketch Engine. (2019). EnTenTen13. https://www.sketchengine.eu/ententen-english-corpus.

39. Smith, R. (1991). Envy and the Sense of Injustice. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The Psychology of Envy and Jealousy (pp. 79-99). New York: Guilford.

40. Soriano, C. (2015). Emotion and Conceptual Metaphor. In H. Flam & J. Kleres (Eds.), Methods of Exploring Emotions (pp. 206-214). New York & London: Routledge.

41. Степанов Ю.С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1997.

42. Stone, J. (2006). The Routledge Book of World Proverbs. London & New York: Routledge.

43. Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When Your Gain is My Pain and Your Pain is My Gain: Neural Correlates of Envy and Schadenfreude. Science, 323, 937-939. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165604.

44. Ulich, D., & Mayring, Ph. (1992). Psychologie der Emotionen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

45. Van de Ven, N. (2009). The Bright Side of a Deadly Sin: The Psychology of Envy. Amsterdam: Kurt-Lewin-Institute.