Департамент образования мэрии города Новосибирска
Дворец творчества детей и учащейся молодежи «Юниор»
XL городская открытая научно-практическая
конференция НОУ «Сибирь»
Секция: Английский язык
тема: English Language and Intercultural Differences:
From Words and Phenomena to Worlds
Автор проекта:
Загузина Елизавета Анатольевна,
Учащийся 9Б класса, МАОУ «Лицей №159»
Центрального округа
Города Новосибирска
Научный руководитель:
Суворова Ольга Александровна
учитель английского языка в.к.к.
МАОУ «Лицей №159»
Новосибирск, 2026г.
CONTENT
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………3
THEORETICAL PART
Chapter 1. Theoretical Foundations of the Relationship between Language and Culture…….5
1.1 The hypothesis of linguistic relativity: determination and relativism …………………….5
1.2 The relationship between three worldviews ………………………………..……………..6
1.3 Typology of linguacultural phenomena ……………………………………………………..7
1.4 Intercultural competence …………………………………………………………………10
PRACTICAL PART
Chapter 2. Linguocultural phenomena of the English language ……………………………..12
2.1 Methodology for selecting information ………………………………………….………12
2.2 Analysis of linguacultural phenomena ……………………………………………………12
2.3 Glossary of linguacultural terms ……………………………………….…………………….19
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….……21
List of information sources …………………………………………………………………..23
Applications
Introduction
Relevance of the topic. In the modern world, where digital technology makes information increasingly accessible to the masses, the topic of intercultural relations becomes a challenging one. Modern people exist in a global digital reality, where, through social media, games, TV series, and music, they daily encounter and learn about other cultures, norms of behavior, humor, and value systems. English, as a mediating language, becomes a guide to these other worlds. However, without a conscious understanding that words represent entire cultural phenomena, this journey can lead to misunderstandings.
In real-life communication with native speakers, intercultural barriers are the primary cause of communication barriers. Studying grammar and vocabulary alone cannot lead to an understanding of all the specific features of a language for more successful communication.
Intercultural misunderstandings can be alleviated by the practical skill of communicating effectively with representatives of different cultures and nationalities. This skill primarily develops the ability to recognize cultural meanings, avoid the pitfalls of direct translation, and demonstrate flexibility in communication. This skill is essential for participating in international online projects, communicating with international peers, visiting other countries, and pursuing careers in linguistics.
The world is becoming increasingly interconnected. The ability to recognize and respect differences, to see not the «strangeness» but the «logic of another culture» is key to solving global problems. Without understanding the internal logic of these cultures, any attempts at solutions will encounter resistance and prove ineffective. By studying how English, as a common tool, simultaneously reveals the uniqueness of cultural meanings, one develops critical thinking and the ability to recognize and adapt to cultural differences without judging them through personal biases.
The aim of the project is to identify and analyze how working with key linguistic and cultural phenomena of the English language contributes to the formation of a conscious understanding of intercultural differences and develops intercultural competence.
Project objectives:
- To investigate the theoretical foundations of the relationship between language and culture by examining the hypothesis of linguistic relativity and defining the concepts of “linguistic worldview” and “linguoculturological unit.”
- Systematize and classify the main types of linguocultural phenomena in the English language that pose challenges to intercultural understanding.
- To define the essence and structure of intercultural competence as a goal of teaching a modern foreign language, identifying its key components.
- Select and study the words, phrases, and phenomena that cause difficulties in intercultural communication.
- Create a glossary of linguocultural phenomena selected for this study.
The object of the study:
The process of intercultural communication using the English language.
Subject of the study:
The influence of linguistic and cultural phenomena in the English language on the awareness of cultural differences.
The theoretical significance of this study lies in the generalization and systematization of knowledge about the linguocultural differences between English and Russian, as well as in clarifying how working with these differences contributes to the development of intercultural competence.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the created glossary can be used as material in English language lessons, especially when studying regional studies and culture, as well as a guide for self‑study for anyone who wishes to improve their understanding of the English language in its cultural context.
The novelty of the project lies in the glossary, which provides an understanding of each phenomenon through a unique structure: literal meaning, real meaning, the essence of the challenge, and the development of intercultural competence, which involves studying the material independently without relying on additional sources of information.
THEORETICAL PART
Chapter 1. Theoretical Foundations of the Relationship between Language and Culture
- The hypothesis of linguistic relativity: determination and relativism.
The relationship between language and culture is based on the idea that language is not merely a means of conveying information. It is an environment that shapes the perception of the world by its speakers. This idea has its roots in the works of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, whose achievement was the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, put forward in the 21st century [4],[9].
The most general formulation of the hypothesis states that language determines thought and the way of knowing. However, it encompasses two aspects: linguistic relativism (the claim that people who speak different languages perceive and represent reality differently) and linguistic determinism (the claim that language is the cause of these differences).
Linguistic determination is widely criticized and refuted by linguists today. From the perspective of opponents of the theory, language is merely a tool for shaping thought, not a condition for its emergence. Steven Pinker [2] provides arguments for this view, using three rather original examples. The first demonstrated that five‑month‑old infants can perform basic mental arithmetic. For this purpose, Mickey Mouses were used, which were added and removed covertly or overtly during the experiment. If the data obtained from the children did not match what was expected, they carefully examined the scene and sought an explanation. Thus, infants think without yet having mastered language. In the second experiment, vervet monkeys were involved; they determined from pictures whether the depicted individuals were related or not. Moreover, the monkeys could not think in words, as they were simply unable to learn them. The third example is related to creative people who claim that at the moment…
At the core of modern science lies linguistic relativism. It asserts that language does not limit our ability to think, but predisposes us to a certain way of perceiving reality. This means that our native language provides us with familiar patterns of thinking, influencing how we pay attention to certain aspects of the world, how we classify them, and how we talk about them.
1.2 The interconnection of the three worldviews
The objects and phenomena that appear before our perception and are available for direct observation through the senses are called phenomena. Based on the perception of reality, a person formulates a system of ideas about the world. After passing the information about the surrounding world through their consciousness and comprehending the results of their perception, they convey their impressions to the interlocutor using language, using words. But a word is not just a name for an object or phenomenon, not just a fragment of reality. Under the influence of a unique consciousness, it acquired its specific, distinctive features inherent in the national social consciousness shaped by the culture of a particular people. The word does not reflect the object of reality itself, but rather the vision of it, which is imposed on the native speaker by the idea or concept of that object that exists in their mind.
To move from reality to its linguistic representation, two stages are involved: first, reality is transformed into thinking, forming a certain concept, and then this concept takes on a verbal form and is закреплено in language. As a result, language, thinking, and culture are inextricably linked to each other and to the real world. They depend on it, reflect it, and, in turn, actively shape it. This interconnection is so strong that the loss of one of the components makes the functioning and, consequently, the existence of the others impossible.
The world around a person is presented in three forms: the real picture of the world, the cultural picture of the world, and the linguistic picture of the world.
The real picture of the world is the world that surrounds a person.
The cultural picture of the world is a reflection of the real picture through concepts formed on the basis of a person’s ideas that have passed through their consciousness. The cultural picture of the world differs among different peoples. This is due to a number of factors: geography, natural conditions, history, beliefs, traditions, etc.
The linguistic picture of the world is a reflection of reality through a cultural picture of the world. Language imposes a certain vision of the world on a person. When mastering their native language, an English‑speaking person sees two objects: arm and hand, where a Russian‑speaking person sees only one — a hand; however, an English speaker does not distinguish between colors (light blue and dark blue), unlike a Russian speaker, and sees only blue [1].
Having learned a foreign word, a person tries to reconcile it with the picture of the world that exists in their mind and that has been shaped by their native language. By assimilating a foreign, new language, a person simultaneously assimilates a foreign, new world. They introduce a concept from another world, from another culture, into their own world.
There are such nationally colored linguistic units that allow us to understand a people’s culture — these are linguoculturolinguistic units [5]. Formally, linguoculturological units can be represented: by a single word: lapty, skomorokh, valenki, izba; by a phrase: Ivanushka the Fool, a hero city; by a sentence: proverbs and sayings, stanzas or quotes from literary works: “If you’ve done your job, go ahead and have fun”; “When pigs fly”; “Oh, Russia, a field of raspberries…” (S. A. Yesenin), “Russia cannot be understood by the mind…” (F. I. Tyutchev).
Linguocultural units require a detailed description when adapted to another language. This is due to the fact that such concepts often remain incomprehensible to a representative of another culture without knowledge of the peculiarities of the national mentality. Let’s take, for example, the term “skomorokh.” How can its meaning be conveyed to English‑speaking people? Skomorokhs were the first professional performers in Rus’. Their activities included not only singing and dancing but also playing musical instruments such as gusli or pipes, performing acrobatic tricks, and tricks with trained bears. They played a key role in creating a festive atmosphere at celebrations and fairs. Skomorokhs are often compared to European minstrels or court jesters, with something similar and equivalent being found in them — in other words, a kind of analogue or equivalent.
However, in addition to linguocultures, when examining the relationship between the perception of the surrounding world, language, and culture, there are several classifications of linguocultural phenomena.
1.3 Typology of linguocultural phenomena
The understanding of the “linguistic picture of the world” serves as the basis for the typology of linguocultural phenomena that pose the greatest challenge to intercultural understanding. Based on these challenges, the phenomena can be divided into three groups.
The first group. The absence of a direct equivalent: non‑equivalent vocabulary, realia.
The concept of non‑equivalent vocabulary includes words that do not have a direct equivalent in the vocabulary of another language [6]. The existence of such vocabulary is due to the fact that many concepts cannot be translated literally because of the differences in the cultures of the speakers of the languages. For example, the absence of an object or phenomenon in a people’s life, or the absence of a clear concept in the general understanding of a given object or phenomenon due to differences in worldview — all these are reasons for the emergence of non‑equivalence.
Although adapting such vocabulary to another language presents some challenges, it would be incorrect to understand this term in the sense of “gaps” or “impossibility of translation.” The absence of a ready‑made equivalent is not an insurmountable obstacle to its translation..
Let’s consider examples of non‑equivalent vocabulary and realia.
Omnishambles — a state of complete failure and catastrophe in all areas simultaneously. Derived from the Latin omni- (everything) and shambles (disorder, devastation). Omnishambles was first used in political satire to describe a situation where a ministry simultaneously failed in terms of its budget, relations with the press, legislative initiative, and public speeches. The very origin of the word emphasizes the simultaneous manifestation and broad scope of the situation that has arisen. Therefore, Russian expressions such as “complete devastation,” “catastrophe,” or “failure” cannot accurately convey these characteristics.
The term “drive-through,” which literally translates as “to drive through,” is likely familiar to many. It refers to a situation where a customer, while in a car, can place an order, make a payment, and pick up the goods without leaving the vehicle. This is precisely the meaning the term conveys. It is a place where customers are served without having to get out of the car.
The phrase “rain check” is a great way to politely decline an invitation if you’re not up for a meeting. It can be translated as “another time” or “let’s reschedule for later.” Initially, “rain check” was a special voucher. In the 19th century, baseball games were often interrupted by rain, so they issued a “rain check” that gave the right to attend the rescheduled game for free at a later time, provided the conditions were favorable. Thus, this expression has become firmly entrenched in the language and has come to symbolize postponing plans to a more convenient time, often due to unforeseen circumstances or simply because of a lack of desire to go at the moment. This allows one to maintain good relations without offending the person who invited and to leave the possibility for a future meeting.
The second group. The difference between abstract values: cultural concepts.
Abstract value systems shape the structure of thinking and the logic of behavior of an entire nation. They are not material objects or specific situations; rather, they exist as ideas, ideals, or principles that are significant to an individual or society. In linguoculturology, such values are called cultural concepts. They reflect a person’s view of the world due to the collective nature of consciousness. Collective consciousness is determined by the way of life, customs, and traditions — in other words, by culture. Due to value differences, a word can be translated, but the meaning, assessment, and the associated behavior will be different.
In English, the concept of “morning” (утро) covers a significant time span – a full twelve hours, starting from midnight and ending at noon. This explains why the English, having stayed up late, say that they returned home at one or two o’clock in the “morning” (one/two o’clock in the morning), rather than in the “night”. After noon comes “afternoon” (after noon), which lasts until approximately five or six in the evening. «Evening» begins, which is followed by a short «night» at about eight o’clock. And again, at midnight, «morning» comes. This division of time may cause confusion among Russian speakers. For example, “night” at nine in the evening seems strange, and phrases like “he came to see her last night” (he visited her last night) or “tomorrow night we’ll have dinner in a Chinese restaurant” (tomorrow night we’ll go to have dinner at a Chinese restaurant) can be shocking, since in Russian culture people don’t go to restaurants or have dinner at night. Of course, mistakes were made in translating the sentences. For a Russian person, “night” in these contexts means “evening,” and “dinner,” accordingly, means dinner [1].
Differences are also evident in the division of the year into seasons. In the Russian tradition, the year is clearly divided into four seasons: winter, spring, autumn, and summer – each lasting three months. The English calendar, although it has the same 365 days, distributes the seasons differently: winter and summer each last four months, while spring and autumn each last two. Thus, in Russia, May is considered a spring month, whereas in the English calendar it is already considered a summer month. Similarly, in Russia, November is an autumn month, while in England it is a winter month [1].
The role of the “grandmother” in Russian culture differs significantly from the role of the “grandmother” in the English‑speaking world. A Russian grandmother, as a rule, becomes even more busy after retirement: she actively participates in raising her grandchildren and manages the household, thereby allowing the parents to work and earn money. By contrast, an English‑speaking “grandmother” often retires and devotes herself to travelling, wearing bright clothes, and catching up on missed entertainment and pleasant pastimes [1].
The third group. The difference in speech rituals: communicative formulas.
The term “communicative formulas” encompasses speech clichés, rituals, politeness formulas, and etiquette norms. These elements make it possible to establish a dialogue between cultures and develop it with confidence. Even if all the words in such expressions are familiar and can be easily translated into Russian, their use may still lead to awkwardness, misunderstandings, or offense. The reason is that the phrase is used in the wrong situation, with the wrong intonation, or the speaker expects a completely different reaction from the interlocutor.
For example, the expression “good day” is not at all equivalent to “good day,” as one might assume by analogy with “good morning” — “доброе утро” or “good evening” — “добрый вечер.” “Добрый day” is “good afternoon,” while “good day” is used only when saying goodbye; it carries a connotation of sharpness, irritation, and even rudeness, and can be translated as “the conversation is over, goodbye!” [1].
Phrases like “It’s cold today, isn’t it?” or “It’s a wonderful day, don’t you think?” are by no means questions about the weather. This is one of the forms of greeting, a substitute for the expression “Let’s talk.” The opponent’s silence may be perceived as an offensive statement: “I won’t exchange greetings with you.” It’s enough to simply reply with “Yes, that’s right.” However, objecting to the interlocutor seriously violates etiquette. The atmosphere becomes tense, and feelings of offense or embarrassment arise. It’s not customary to respond in such a straightforward way. Talking about the weather is a “ritual” that helps facilitate communication. After making remarks about the weather as a greeting, the English look for a convenient moment to start a conversation on a topic that interests them [2].
When communicating, many people certainly don’t want to come across as rude to a foreigner. Perhaps they even have the intention of achieving complete mutual understanding. But what ability should be developed to achieve this goal?
1.4 Intercultural competence
The most significant goal in teaching a foreign language is to develop intercultural competence, the essence of which is achieving mutual understanding in the process of communication, taking into account cultural differences. This requires not only language proficiency but also an understanding of the values, social norms, thinking patterns, and behavioral rituals of another culture. Intercultural competence itself is formed in the process of intercultural communication. Possessing this ability becomes extremely relevant in the modern world, which is characterized by ubiquitous digital interaction, growing cultural diversity within states, and strengthened ties between countries. And a person studying a foreign language should not just know the subject, but be competent in it.
In the academic community, active work is underway to define the concept of intercultural competence and its structure. The model proposed by M. Byram, which identifies five main components of intercultural competence [11], has received the greatest recognition.
- intercultural attitudes, including openness, curiosity, and a willingness to abandon prejudices regarding foreign cultures and one’s own culture.
- knowledge: about social groups, their characteristics, behavior in one’s own country and in the country of the communication partner, and about the general processes of social and personal interaction;
- skills of interpreting and relating include the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, explain it, and relate it to phenomena in one’s own culture;
- skills of discovery and interaction includes the ability to acquire new knowledge about culture and cultural behavior, as well as the ability to apply knowledge, relationships, and skills in communication and in real time;
- critical cultural awareness consists in the ability to critically evaluate, based on certain criteria, the worldview, behavior, and results of activities characteristic of one’s own culture and foreign cultures.
At the same time, all five components are interconnected. Intercultural relations create motivation for applying knowledge in practice. Knowledge serves as a substantive basis for developing interpretation and interaction skills, which are then implemented in real communication. Critical cultural awareness, in turn, analyzes and adjusts this entire system.
Developing intercultural competence provides significant advantages in the process of mastering foreign languages. It contributes to a deeper understanding of another person’s logic. Moreover, having such competence allows one to make a good impression and avoid awkward situations during communication. Most of the abilities are also developed through the study of linguocultural phenomena, which are, first and foremost, an essential attribute in communication between cultures.
PRACTICAL PART
Chapter 2. Studying the linguocultural phenomena of the English language and creating a glossary.
2.1 Information selection methodology
The selection of phenomena was based on three criteria derived from the theoretical part of the project:
- The phenomenon belongs to one of three typological groups: non‑equivalent vocabulary, communicative formulas, or cultural concepts.
- The phenomenon cannot be properly understood through a literal translation.
- The phenomenon gives rise to a conflict of cultural associations between speakers of Russian and English.
The analysis is based on a comparison of English and Russian linguistic cultures: the ways of expressing the same concepts, the features of speech etiquette, and the value systems embedded in the language were compared, as well as the linguistic and cultural commentary on each phenomenon — that is, an explanation of the context of a word or phrase and why speakers of different languages perceive them differently. To select and study the information, books that document typical difficulties in intercultural communication were used (S.G. Ter‑Minasova, “Language and Intercultural Communication”; K. Fox, “England and the English”), as well as scientific articles and Internet resources.
During the study of the selected material, information about each phenomenon was organized according to a unified structure that included the literal meaning, the actual meaning, the essence of the difficulties faced by Russian‑speaking students, and how working with this phenomenon contributes to the development of intercultural competence.
2.2 Analysis of linguocultural phenomena
Pudding is a word with an extremely wide range of meanings. It refers to black pudding, salty pudding with meat/kidneys (steak and kidney pudding), and a traditional Christmas sweet dish (Christmas pudding), and dessert in general (What’s for pudding?). This highlights the lack of equivalence of the term. If, for the British, almost any dish can be considered a pudding, then people for whom a pudding is a specific dish — namely, a dessert casserole made from grains, flour, eggs, and milk with seasonings or sweets, prepared in a water bath — are naturally left with a question: how can one perceive a casserole as any dessert or even a savory dish? This may be due to the fact that traditionally puddings are made from all sorts of leftovers and are enhanced with whatever is available in the food supply. The texture of a pudding is delicate, dense, and porous, which is why any desserts with this texture are called puddings.
The breadth and flexibility of the meaning of the word “pudding” create significant difficulties in intercultural communication. The English language combines a number of gastronomic concepts under a single word, whereas in Russian these concepts are clearly distinguished.
The absence in the Russian language of a word capable of encompassing such heterogeneous concepts leads to the situation where, upon encountering “pudding” on a British menu or in conversation, a Russian‑speaker cannot immediately determine what exactly is being referred to and risks ordering, for example, black pudding instead of chocolate pudding. Therefore, “pudding” demonstrates how mistaken it is to assume that there is always a direct and unique correspondence between words in different languages. It teaches us not to rush to draw conclusions about ambiguous phenomena — which often leads to mistakes — but to collect data and analyze it.
Tea drinking can be considered as non‑equivalent gastronomic realities. For the British, tea is the most important national tradition, which has set the rhythm of the day for centuries. British culture has developed a unique system of tea traditions, each of which has its own name, time, gastronomic content, and even social context. In Russian linguistic culture, both the rituals themselves and their names are absent, which makes tea drinking an example of non‑equivalent vocabulary. Most often, confusion arises with Low Tea and High Tea [7].
Low Tea (or Afternoon Tea) is a British tradition that is still relevant and popular not only in its country of origin. For this tea time, held at noon, a light snack is served, consisting of small sandwiches similar to canapés, buns with thickened cream and jam, as well as pies. The ritual was created for high society, which had free time in the middle of the day. It is associated with beautiful dresses, leisurely conversations, porcelain tableware, and a refined atmosphere. Traditionally, Afternoon Tea was held in the drawing rooms of aristocratic houses. Guests sat on comfortable sofas and armchairs around low coffee or tea tables. It is from here that its less well‑known name, Low Tea, originates.
Despite the literal translation of “High tea” (high tea), it is not an aristocratic event. On the contrary, High tea denotes a substantial evening meal with hot dishes and tea, associated with the working class. Workers in factories, mines, and plants returned home late, tired and very hungry. They needed substantial, hot food to restore their strength after a long day’s work. High Tea served as both an afternoon snack and a dinner for them. Many people mistakenly believe that “High” indicates a higher social status or refinement. In fact, it’s the opposite. The name “High Tea” comes from the type of table at which it was eaten. Working‑class families ate at a high dining table in the kitchen or dining room.
The names Low and High create a false association with the level of prestige associated with the event. A Russian‑speaking person who is unfamiliar with the historical context automatically interprets High Tea as an “aristocratic” tea party, whereas in British culture it’s the opposite. If a Briton hears a foreigner, looking at a High Tea meal, exclaim “I like Low Tea!”, they are highly likely to be outraged by the speaker’s incompetence. For the British, every tea‑drinking ritual is unique and completely different. By distinguishing between “High Tea” and “Low Tea,” a learner of English develops the habit of not relying on literal translations but rather understanding the cultural nuances of concepts related to traditions.
Cultural concepts
In English linguistic culture, detachment from the surrounding world and a reluctance to intrude into private life are key value systems, which is why “privacy” is considered one of the main concepts. The proposed Russian translations “solitude” and “confidentiality” do not fully capture the semantic meaning of the concept. The adjectives “private” and “personal” correspond to only one of the meanings of the word “private,” whose polysemy is evident in its wide range of collocations: private property (private ownership), private life (personal life), private conversation (confidential conversation), private information (secret information), private meeting (closed session), private talks (unofficial negotiations), private concert (house concert), private view (closed viewing (of a film or performance)). It is impossible to convey the phrase “private joke” in a single word — a joke between close people that is understood only by them; similarly, “private laugh” — laughter whose cause is understood only by a limited circle of people. The expression “in private” means alone, in solitude; to keep something in private means to keep it secret. The polysemy of “private” shows that this concept causes difficulties in the mind of a Russian person, since there is no similar “zone of autonomy” in Russian culture [8].
However, the zone of personal autonomy is noticeably evident in the daily lives of the British. For example, the distance between English people is always greater than that between Russians. Or the British hold the door for someone walking behind them when the distance is significantly greater than is customary among Russians. Passengers in public transport prefer to sit alone and move away from their fellow passenger as soon as a seat becomes available somewhere. It feels as if “privacy” is not an abstract concept, but an objective reality.
This cultural value explains the specifics of English communicative behavior. For example, in English communication, bringing speakers closer together is acceptable only up to the privacy zone. Invading this zone is a serious violation of communication norms. This gives rise to communicative prohibitions: it is not customary to talk about personal life, family problems, health, or salary. Even such a natural question for Russian communication in public transport as “Are you getting off now?” is too personal for the English, and they do not ask it.
In Russian culture, the distance between interlocutors is traditionally shorter; they can become closer, potentially developing into deep personal relationships, and communication barriers are relatively minor — which once again confirms the complexity of how Russians perceive the value of privacy.
Nevertheless, an in‑depth study of the concept and an understanding of its essence make it possible to see that the physical distance that the British maintain in everyday life is not indifference, and the communicative prohibitions on personal questions are not secrecy or an unwillingness to get closer. On the contrary, it is respect for the interlocutor’s boundaries. It allows one to adjust one’s own behavior in an English‑speaking environment: not to shorten the distance, not to ask questions that are “harmless” by Russian standards, and not to encroach on the zone of personal autonomy.
The cultural concept of small talk, although it translates as “small talk,” is an integral part of intercultural communication [10]. In Russian‑speaking culture, its closest equivalents are the expressions “small talk” or “conversation about nothing.” In English‑speaking environments, this term refers to short, informal communication on everyday topics, avoiding deep or controversial issues. In Anglo‑American culture, small talk is used to establish contact and create a friendly atmosphere. This is hinted at by the very structure of such a conversation:
- greeting – response to a greeting
- the question “How are you?” – an answer and a follow‑up question
- the interlocutor’s response and a question on a neutral topic,
- several “question–answer” episodes.
Using neutral topics at the beginning, before moving on to the main purpose of the visit, helps establish contact more smoothly, reduces tension, and creates a favorable environment for further dialogue.
The Russian version of “small talk” is often shorter and more straightforward, unlike the English one. This is the crux of the problem: the Russian version of such a conversation may be perceived by a native English speaker as abruptness, disinterest, or even rudeness. Ignoring the structure of “small talk” hinders the creation of a trusting atmosphere, which is necessary for open communication. And learning it, in turn, gives an advantage — a practical algorithm for initiating contact with a native speaker of English. Additionally, it teaches you not to view these ritual conversations as a waste of time, but to see them as a tool for productive communication.
Color concepts. Color associations in English and Russian cultures have similarities: black symbolizes mourning, while white symbolizes hope, goodness, and purity. In English, this is reflected in the fact that nouns that agree with the adjective “black” have a negative meaning, while those that agree with the adjective “white” usually have a positive meaning. For example, “black market” (черный рынок), “blackmail” (шантаж), “black soul” (черная душа) – in all these cases, “black” is associated with evil. On the contrary, white is the color of peace (white dove – a white dove, a symbol of peace), the color of everything good and pure. White can even soften a negative meaning: white lie – a morally justified lie.
However, there are also cultural differences. Despite the fact that “black” has a negative connotation, it is still generally believed that a black cat is a symbol of good luck. In Russian culture, according to superstition and belief, a black cat brings misfortune and bad luck. In English culture, however, black cats are a sign of good luck and unexpected happiness. And, to the surprise of Russians, it is black cats that are depicted on cards with the inscription “Good Luck.”
Even such a commonly used concept as “green eyes” raises doubts regarding its lexical meaning. The reason is that the meaning of a word is not limited to its literal sense; it is also enriched by cultural connotations. In Russian, the phrase “green eyes” sounds poetic and romantic, evoking images of magic or mermaids. A completely different picture is observed in the English language. “Green eyes” is often used as a metaphor for envy or jealousy and carries an obvious negative connotation.
The difficulty lies in the conflict between the perceptions of different people regarding objects and phenomena of reality, which, although denoted by “equivalent” words, have different meanings shaped by culture. For example, a Russian speaker who is unaware of these differences will misunderstand a postcard with a black cat and the inscription “Good Luck,” interpreting it as a kind of irony. In this regard, the study of the concept of color associations helps to understand that generally accepted things cannot be interpreted in the same way across different cultures [1].
In English culture, it is customary to save money against a rainy day, which can be considered as a cultural concept. Russians, in turn, put it off for a rainy day, because in our culture, as in the culture of the British, the word «black» symbolizes a great disaster. The relevant question arises: why are funds being postponed on a rainy day? The origins of the «rainy day» date back to the days when well-being was closely linked to climatic conditions. For workers such as seasonal laborers, farmers, and farmhands, whose work was directly dependent on the weather, rain meant a suspension of work and, consequently, a loss of income. Thus, a practice emerged in the culture of saving money for unforeseen circumstances, symbolized precisely by a “rainy day.”
The literal translation “for a rainy day” does not evoke in a Russian‑speaker an association with the need for savings. In our culture, such an idea is not entrenched. Without knowledge of its origin, the phrase may remain incomprehensible. Consequently, studying the phenomenon of “against a rainy day” shows that at first glance “strange” phrases can contain condensed information about a people’s historical experience. It is the ability to see these small details of another people’s history and way of life that is revealing [1].
Communicative formulas
“How are you?” is a communication formula used everywhere and in everyday life. At first glance, it seems that this is a genuine interest in the other person’s well‑being, and one can share what’s going on without fear. However, in most cases, the person asking the question is not seeking to find out the true state of affairs. It is worth noting that the phrase “How are you” is perceived as a genuine question only within a close circle of people: friends and family. In other situations, the phrase serves as a ritual greeting. Therefore, regardless of how you’re feeling and the circumstances, the optimal response would be “I’m fine. And you?”. The essence of the phenomenon’s difficulty lies in the fact that it is viewed as a request for information.
In Russian culture, the question “How are you?” allows for a wider range of responses, but in English culture, an attempt to give an honest, detailed account of one’s affairs and well‑being will be met with bewilderment. Knowledge of this phenomenon fosters an understanding that in another culture, a greeting serves a contact‑establishing function that is not related to the transmission of information. It demonstrates that a standard positive response is a socially established norm within a given culture, rather than a manifestation of insincerity towards the interlocutor [2].
«How do you do?» speech cliche is similar to «»How are you?» both in translation: «How are things going?» and in origin: both phrases are ritual greetings. But unlike «How are you», which allows for a variable response, there is only one acceptable response option for «How do you do?» – the same phrase.: «How do you do?». For a Russian person, it may seem absurd that it is customary to answer a question with exactly the same question. It is worth noting that the phrase itself is usually pronounced as a statement or even an exclamation (“How do you do!”) and is perceived as a greeting, so it is not considered a question. Here, as with “How are you,” you should never start talking about how things are actually going — this is unlikely to arouse interest. The problem remains the same: the greeting is perceived as a request for information. However, further familiarization with the phrase removes the internal prohibition on a “mirror response,” which is uncharacteristic of Russian communication [2].
The communicative formula “Let’s do lunch sometime,” used when saying goodbye, literally means “Let’s have lunch sometime.” In most cases, it is not a genuine invitation but serves the function of politely ending a conversation without taking on any real commitments. Most likely, the long‑awaited lunch meeting will not take place. In this regard, the phrase does not mean “Let’s have lunch sometime,” but rather “I’m not interested, but I don’t want to seem rude.” Let’s pretend we’ll meet for lunch sometime so that the awkwardness is smoothed over.
A speech cliché allows you to end a conversation without causing discomfort for both собеседники, while still maintaining the illusion of mutual sympathy and interest.
The problem is that foreigners, especially those from cultures where direct promises are highly valued, take the phrase literally: they are waiting for a meeting that will never happen, which leads to disappointment and a sense of being deceived. In any case, knowledge develops a skill: mastering this formula allows you to use it as a tool for gently ending a conversation without awkwardness. This fosters an understanding that farewell rituals, which are disguised as agreements, are a culturally accepted form of politely ending a conversation, rather than a sign of disdain on the part of the interlocutor.
The expression “Bless you” after someone sneezes may seem absurd, as it literally translates as “Bless you.” This cliché has its roots. One theory holds that sneezing could have been perceived as a premonition of illness, and such words served as a request for divine protection. Another theory links it to a superstition that the soul might leave the body when a person sneezes. The phrase was meant to protect the soul from the devil at such a vulnerable moment. Today, this tradition, like the Russian “Bless you,” has become so ingrained that it is usually an automatic response. People may be afraid of appearing impolite if they don’t utter this phrase. Nevertheless, “Bless you” are a simple act of kindness that helps strengthen interpersonal connections and create an atmosphere of mutual goodwill for communication. Difficulties may arise with this expression, especially regarding how to respond to it. Logically, it’s not hard to guess that “Bless you” corresponds to “Будь здоров,” since it is also uttered after a sneeze. Although etiquette does not require a mandatory response to “Bless you,” in some situations silence may be considered rude—particularly when communicating with someone you don’t know well or in a formal setting. Today, this tradition, like the Russian “Будь здоров/а,” has become so ingrained that it is usually an automatic response. People may be afraid of seeming impolite if they don’t utter this phrase. Nevertheless, “Bless you” are a simple act of kindness that helps strengthen interpersonal connections and create an atmosphere of mutual goodwill in communication. Difficulties may arise with this expression, especially regarding how to respond to it. Logically, it’s not hard to guess that “Bless you” corresponds to “Будь здоров,” as it is also uttered after a sneeze. Although etiquette does not require a mandatory response to “Bless you,” in some situations silence may be considered rude—particularly when communicating with someone you don’t know well or in an official setting. In fact, the answer is simple: it’s enough to say “Thank you.” The difficulty arises for another reason: a Russian‑speaking interlocutor, upon hearing “Bless you,” may be confused, because in our culture it is customary to wish for health, not to bless. But studying etiquette formulas also involves abandoning the search for their rational justification, instead suggesting that we accept them as established norms.
2.3 Linguocultural glossary
The result of the study (the product) was the creation of a linguocultural glossary. The glossary is a modern methodological resource designed for people who wish to study both the English language and its culture. It is aimed at familiarizing people with the culture and developing intercultural competence skills through engagement with the study of phenomena. The glossary is based on an analysis of linguocultural phenomena carried out at the practical stage of the research work.
The structure of the information contained in the glossary:
- The phenomenon and its type
- Literal meaning
- Real value
- The essence of the difficulty
- Developing intercultural competence
Features and advantages of the glossary created as a result of this study (“product”):
Unlike continuous text, a glossary presents each linguocultural phenomenon in the form of a concise, well‑structured entry. The clear distribution of information makes the data legible and easy to understand. This allows you to save time and quickly find the required concept without having to reread difficult and lengthy material, for example, from online resources. Such a glossary also includes associative images that facilitate the easy absorption of information.
Conclusion
The conducted study made it possible to identify how intercultural differences manifest themselves in the English language and why understanding them is necessary for successful communication. In the work:
- the hypothesis of linguistic relativity has been analyzed, and it has been established that language does not limit but rather directs thinking;
- three interrelated worldviews are examined: the real, the cultural, and the linguistic; the concept of linguoculturologyeme is also introduced;
- three types of linguocultural phenomena that create difficulties in communication have been identified and characterized: non‑equivalent vocabulary, cultural concepts, and communicative formulas;
- the essence of intercultural competence is defined, and its main components are identified according to M. Byram’s model;
- specific examples of English words, phrases, and phenomena that can be misleading have been selected and analyzed in detail;
- a glossary has been developed that systematizes these phenomena in a form that is easy to remember and use.
During the study, various approaches to understanding the relationship between language and thought were examined. Special attention was paid to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which today is recognized as holding that language predisposes its speakers to a certain way of perceiving reality. It was established that real communication failures are most often associated precisely with a lack of understanding of cultural meanings. Using the example of non‑equivalent vocabulary, it was shown that the absence of a direct equivalent in Russian does not make translation impossible, but it does require an extensive commentary. The analysis of cultural concepts has demonstrated that even familiar words can carry a different value‑laden meaning. The study of communicative formulas has revealed that many phrases familiar to native English speakers serve a ritual function, and their literal interpretation leads to communication failures.
Attention is paid to intercultural competence. A model of intercultural competence has been described, which includes intercultural relations, knowledge, skills of interpretation and correlation, skills of discovery and interaction, as well as critical cultural awareness. The work has shown that the development of intercultural competence is fostered through conscious familiarity with linguocultural phenomena, and for each of them, the literal and real meaning, the essence of the difficulty for a Russian‑speaking student, and how it contributes to the development of intercultural competence have been identified.
To provide a clear presentation of the selected linguocultural phenomena, a glossary was created. It is a methodological resource in which each phenomenon is described according to a single structure, provided with associative illustrations, and can be used to study the culture of the language.
Thus, the tasks set out in the work have been fully accomplished, and the project’s goal — to identify and analyze how working with linguocultural phenomena contributes to the formation of a conscious understanding of intercultural differences — has been achieved.
