What are the realities of life. Reality words

realities

(from medieval lat. realis - real). Items of material culture that serve as the basis for the nominative meaning of the word.

Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. Ed. 2nd. - M.: Enlightenment. Rosenthal D. E., Telenkova M. A.. 1976 .

See what "reality" is in other dictionaries:

Mn. Items or phenomena of material culture, ethno-national characteristics, customs, rituals, as well as historical facts or processes that usually do not have lexical equivalents in other languages. Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Efremova

realities- 1. Words or expressions denoting objects, concepts, situations that do not exist in the practical experience of people speaking a different language. 2. A variety of factors studied by external linguistics and translation studies, such as state ... ...

realities- lingu. a) words denoting objects and phenomena of a particular culture, and not found in other cultures b) lexical units of the source language, describing objects of material or spiritual culture, characteristic only for a given language ... ... Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

realities- (lat. realia) pl. something that imaat means for practicality, belly, svarnost, real facts, real science, real knowledge … Macedonian dictionary

REALITIES OF OPEN SPACE-TIME: TO UNDERSTANDING OUR HISTORICAL SYSTEM- text by I. Wallerstein, published in a number of sources in the mid-1980s. According to Wallerstein, time and space are external realities less dependent on us than geohistorical phenomena created by society. There are numerous... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

Realities (national)

Realities (national)- objects, phenomena, traditions, customs that make up the specifics of a given social community, ethnic group. Realities are also called words and phrases denoting them. Most national realities refer to non-equivalent vocabulary ... Brief glossary of translation terms

national realities- 1. Objects, phenomena, traditions, customs that make up the specifics of a given social community, ethnic group. Realities are words and phrases denoting them. Most of the national realities refer to non-equivalent vocabulary. 2.… … Explanatory Translation Dictionary

Americana Americana Genre Drama Soap Opera Creator Michael Sitzman Cast Anthony LaPaglia Ashley Greene Emily de Ravin ... Wikipedia

reality words- words denoting objects, phenomena and concepts that exist in the practical experience of native speakers of the source language, but are absent in the practical experience of native speakers of the target language and therefore do not have equivalents in it. Wed realities... Explanatory Translation Dictionary

Books

• Russian socio-economic system: realities and vectors of development. Monograph, Savchenko P.V. The monograph reveals the phenomenon of the socio-economic System, the realities and vectors of development of the socio-economic System of Russia, its common and identical features, the person as the core and goal ...

Each language reflects the phenomena and processes taking place in the world, as well as specific objects and processes that exist for each people in the territory of their residence. Although the vision of the world is the same for all peoples, nevertheless, in the culture of each people there are concepts, phenomena, objects that are unique to this people, associated with its historical, geographical, socio-political, and other conditions of existence. When studying the national and cultural content of the language, the peculiarities of the social structure, customs, art, science, literature, everyday life, epos, many scientists attached particular importance to realities. Questions of the relationship between culture in the broadest sense of the word and the information embedded, stored and communicated in words as elements of the language have long attracted not only linguists, but also representatives of other sciences. All the features of the life of a people and its state, such as natural conditions, geographical location, the course of historical development, social structure, the trend of social thought, science, art, are necessarily reflected in the language of a given people. Therefore, we can argue that the language is a reflection of the culture of any nation, it carries the national-cultural code of this or that people. In every language there are words whose meaning reflects the connection between language and culture, which is called the cultural component of the semantics of a language unit. These words include, first of all, words-realities.

Download:

Preview:

The concept of "reality" as a linguistic phenomenon

In translation theory, the term "reality" is used in two senses. On the one hand, it refers to any facts characteristic of a given people. These facts include objects of culture and everyday life, historical events, geographical names, as well as proper names. On the other hand, realities are words and phrases denoting these facts. Despite the ambiguity of the use of the same term in relation to the objects of reality and to the linguistic signs denoting these objects, the term "realia" in the sense of "reality-word" has firmly entered translation studies and at the same time retained its objective meaning. Perhaps the main reason for its use is the inconvenience of the too long phrase "linguistic unit denoting reality."

As a linguistic phenomenon, realities belong to the category of non-equivalent vocabulary. The term "word equivalent" was created by L.V. Shcherba. He emphasized that such a group of words denotes one concept and is a potential equivalent of a word.

Scientist L.S. Barkhudarov noted that all types of semantic correspondences between the lexical units of two languages ​​can be reduced to three main ones: full correspondence, partial correspondence, lack of correspondence. In cases where the correspondence of one or another lexical unit of one language in the vocabulary of another language is completely absent, it is customary to speak of non-equivalent vocabulary. This term was introduced by E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov. They considered non-equivalent vocabulary “words that serve to express concepts that are absent in a different culture and in a different language, words related to private cultural elements, i.e. to cultural elements characteristic only of culture A and absent in culture B, as well as words that do not have a translation into another language, in a word, have no equivalents outside the language to which they belong. At the same time, it is noted that a characteristic feature of non-equivalent words is their untranslatability into other languages ​​with the help of constant correspondence, their non-correlation with some word of another language.

In linguistics, there are several definitions of realities. By definition O.S. Akhmanova , realia are “various factors studied by external linguistics, such as the state structure of a country, the history and culture of a given people, language contacts of native speakers of a given language, etc. from the point of view of their reflection in a given language.

HELL. Schweitzer gave the following definition of reality: "units of the national language, denoting unique referents, characteristic of a given linguoculture and absent in the compared linguocultural community."

S. Vlakhov and S. Florin considered realities words and phrases that name objects characteristic of the life (everyday life, culture, social and historical development) of one people and alien to another, being carriers of national and / or historical color, they, as a rule, do not have exact matches (equivalents) in other languages, and, therefore, cannot be translated on a general basis, requiring a special approach.

The very word "reality" -latin adjectiveneuter, plural (realis, -e, pl. realia - “real”, “real”), which, under the influence of similar lexical categories, has become a feminine noun. In philology, the concept of reality is understood as an object, a thing that exists or existed materially, often connecting in meaning with the concept of "life"; for example, "the realities of European (social) life". According to dictionary definitions, this is “any subject of material culture”, “in classical grammar, various factors ... such as the state structure of a given country, the history and culture of a given people, language contacts of native speakers of a given language, etc. in terms of their reflection in given language”, “objects of material culture that serve as the basis for the nominative meaning of the word”.
The realia-subject, even within the framework of country studies, has a broad meaning, which does not always fit into the framework of the realia-word, being an element of extralinguistic reality; The realia-word as an element of the vocabulary of a given language is a sign with the help of which such objects - their referents - can receive their linguistic appearance. Apparently, in order to clarify this issue, some authors try to clarify the concept, using along with the term "reality" and "reality-word".

concept "reality" should be distinguished from the concept of "term".Realities are characteristic of the sublanguage of fiction and mass media, are inextricably linked with the culture of a certain people, are common to the language of this people and alien to other languages. The terms are devoid of any national connotation, refer mainly to the field of science, are created artificially, exclusively for the name of an object or phenomenon, with the spread of which it is widely used. First of all, the similarity of reality with the term is striking. Unlike most lexical units, terms denote precisely defined concepts, objects, phenomena; as an ideal, these are unambiguous words (and phrases) without synonyms, often of foreign origin; among them there are those whose meanings are limited historically. All this can be said about realities. Moreover, at the junction of these two categories there are a number of units that are difficult to define as a term or as a reality, and there are many such that can “legitimately” be considered both terms and realities. A. D. Schweitzer even has the concept of “term-reality”.
The term usually spreads with the spread of the subject of which it is the name. As if at home, it enters the language of every nation that, in one way or another, gets to know its referent. One cannot demand “nationality” from the term: regardless of its origin, it is the property of all mankind, which uses it as its lawful “property”. Realia always belongs to the people in whose language it was born. Unlike terms, it penetrates into other languages ​​in general, regardless of the acquaintance of the corresponding people with the object it denotes, more often from literature or through mass media channels. Having appeared in the vocabulary of another language, it can stay in it for some time, and then disappear, or it can gain a foothold and turn into a borrowed word, while enriching or clogging the language. Moreover, there are realities that, not being terms, have an international distribution and are used almost as widely as the terms. But here, too, they are distinguished from the latter by the scope of their application, as well as the presence of a national or historical connotation.
Terms differ from realities and in origin. Many are created artificially to name certain objects (Latin and Greek are often used as building materials) or by conscious rethinking of existing words, while realities always arise through natural word creation. And this is quite understandable: realities are folk words closely connected with the life and worldview of the people who create them. An important feature of realities, which G. V. Chernov pointed out back in 1958, is, in contrast to terms, their common use, popularity, “acquaintances” with all or most native speakers of the source language and, conversely, “alienation” (V. P . Berkov)native speakers of the target language.
Some realities also have the features of proper names, others stand on the border between both categories, and it would be no less correct to say that many of the proper names can be realities. Indeed, the close features of many realities and proper names in a number of cases make it almost impossible to separate them. Often the boundary has to be drawn, relying only on spelling: a proper name is written with a capital letter, a realia with a lowercase letter; and in relation to the German language, where common nouns are also written with capital letters, even this feature loses its significance. Vinogradov V.S. believes that a proper name is always a reality. In speech, it always names a really existing or invented object of thought, a person or place, one of a kind and inimitable. Each such name usually contains information about the local and national identity of the object designated by it. S. Florin and S. Vlakhov consider proper names as an independent class of non-equivalent vocabulary, “which has its own signs and methods of transmission in translation, of course, often coinciding with the methods of “translating” realities.” For the most part, they are related to the realities by a bright connotative meaning, which determines the ability to convey national and historical flavor. Nevertheless, we are forced to agree with the scientist Vinogradov that proper names are realities, since they name objects of reality that are unique in their kind. For example, such proper names as Ded Moroz, Tsarevna Frog, Koschey the Immortal are indeed objects known in Russian culture and absent in the cultures of other countries, which means they have every right to be called realities.

Realities can be ethnic, everyday, cultural, and historical. They can also be a deviation from the literary norm, they include, for example, dialectisms, elements of a reduced style (vernacular), jargon. But no matter how different the realities are, it is rather difficult and problematic to recreate them in the target language. The process of translating realities is ambiguous in many respects, since in the source text these ethnic components are not explained by the author and exist as something natural and self-evident. Realities are nothing more than carriers of the historical and cultural linguistic component, and translators should not forget about this. These are extremely specific concepts and definitions that are unique to one, considered separately, people, language group, ethnic minority. The realities of one nation, as a rule, are not found in the language of another and are unique in their own way in a different linguistic form. The category of realities includes many proverbs, sayings, idiomatic expressions, phraseological units, words and phrases denoting certain national features, phenomena, objects that are not found in other ethnic groups. Provided that a linguistic unit is a small world that reflects a certain real fragment or an idea about this fragment of reality, then the concept of realia, in ethno-cultural terms, is much higher than the value of the usual linguistic structural component! It is in the course of the translator's activity that various linguistic systems, as well as completely dissimilar civilizations and cultural communities, collide and come close to each other. Against this background, the process of translating realities stands out especially clearly. As already mentioned by many theoreticians in the field of translation studies, the reality is “the impossibility of translation in translation”. In this case, it is impossible to do without footnotes and comments, but, unfortunately, they will not be a solution to the problem. In many cases, even commonly used language components may become an element of cultural terminology or may not belong to this category at all. Translation of realities is impossible without the translator having extensive baggage of not only linguistic, but also background knowledge.

Thus, the realities represent a very interesting and unusual layer of the vocabulary of the language. The semantization of these words is extremely important for foreign language learners, because they usually cause difficulties in understanding. According to N.I. Parozskaya, the study of words - realities is also of interest in connection with the interpretation of texts. The category of realities is not simple and ambiguous, it requires a special approach in their classification and translation.

So, the reality is different from the termthe fact that it is characteristic of the sublanguage of fiction and the media, is inextricably linked with the culture of a certain people, is common to the language of this people and alien to other languages. The term is devoid of any national connotation, refers mainly to the field of science, is created artificially, exclusively for the name of an object or phenomenon, with the spread of which it is widely used.

In the light of the foregoing, wewe accept the definition of reality given by scientists S. Vlakhov and S. Florin. In our opinion, their concept of this type of lexical units is the most complete and detailed. Scientists gave this definition, taking into account the translation of realia words, which is of great interest to us.

Reality - an object, a thing, materially existing or existing. According to dictionary definitions, realities are “objects of material culture”. In linguistics and translation studies, realities are words and expressions denoting these objects, as well as set expressions containing such words. The concept of "reality" should be distinguished from the concept of "term".

Realities are characteristic of the sublanguage of fiction and mass media, are inextricably linked with the culture of a certain people, are common to the language of this people and alien to other languages. The terms are devoid of any national connotation, refer mainly to the field of science, are created artificially, exclusively for the name of an object or phenomenon, with the spread of which it is widely used.

Some realities are similar to proper names: Santa Claus, Koschey the Immortal, Princess Frog and others. Sometimes realities are a deviation from the literary norm, they include, for example, dialectisms, elements of a reduced style (vernacular), jargon. There are several classifications of realities according to various criteria. Realities as units of translation are divided into:

 reductions (DK, ZAGS, collective farm);

 words (borscht, sundress);

 phrases (house of life, house of culture);

 sentences (Not everything is Shrove Tuesday). Distinctive features of realia are the nature of its content (connection of the designated object with a certain country, nationality, social community) and its belonging to a certain period of time. On the basis of these features, the researchers proposed a subject, temporal and local classification of realities.

1.1. Subject classification of realities

 Geographic realities: names of objects of physical geography (steppe, trade wind); names of objects related to human activity (rancho, duval); endemic names (sequoia, iguana).

 Ethnographic realities (concepts belonging to the life and culture of the people): household (rickshaw, kimono, caftan); labor (skiff, cowboy, drummer); names of the concepts of art and culture (bogatyr, harlequin, balalaika); ethnic concepts (Cossack, Goth, Yankees); measures and money (pound, fathom, league, franc).

 Socio-political realities: concepts related to the administrative-territorial structure (farm, province, state); names of carriers and authorities (rada, knesset, veche); military (cooning, knight, samurai); names of organizations, ranks, titles, estates, castes (earl, laborer, prince, yeoman).

Temporary division of realities

 Modern realia, used by some language community and denoting concepts that exist at a given time.

 Historical realities denoting concepts characteristic of the past of a certain social group.

Local division of realities

In the plane of one language, one should consider one's own and other people's realities, which, in turn, are divided into national (known to all residents of the state, to the whole people), local (belonging to one dialect or dialect), micro-local (characteristic of a particular area). From the standpoint of two languages, realities are divided into external realities that are alien to this pair (for example, “samurai” for Russian and English), and realities that are alien to one language and their own for another (“rad” for Ukrainian and Russian languages). Considering several languages, one can single out regional realities (“euro” for countries that have adopted this currency as a national one) and international realities, present in the vocabulary of many languages, included in their vocabulary, but retaining their original coloring (rancho, tequila).

From all that has been said, we can conclude that the main feature of reality is its color. It is the transfer of color when translating a text from one language to another that constitutes the main problem of the translator when working with realities. Some researchers (Fedorov, Vereshchagin, Kostomarov) classify realities as non-equivalent vocabulary, arguing that they cannot be translated . However, reality is part of the source text, so its transfer to the target text is one of the conditions for the adequacy of the translation. So, the question is not whether it is possible or impossible to translate reality, but how to translate it.

Introduction……………………………………………………………..2

1. Definition of linguistic reality…………………………………….

1.1 The place of realities in the language…………………………………………….5

1.2 Understanding realities…………………………………………………6

1.3 Realia as a language unit……………………………………8

2. The problem of classification of realities………………………………………………………11

3. Ways of transferring realities in translation…………………………19

2. Realities in socio-political discourse and ways of their translation…………………………………………………………………………………

2.1 Understanding socio-political texts………………25

2.2 Translation of realities in socio-political articles…………26

Conclusion……………………………………………………………..38

List of used literature……………………………………41

Introduction.

Questions of the correlation of culture in the broadest sense of the word and the information embedded, stored and communicated in words as elements of the language have long attracted not only linguists, but also representatives of other sciences. All large and small features of the life of a given people and its country (such as natural conditions, geographical location, the course of historical development, the nature of the social structure, the trend of social thought, science, art) are certainly reflected in the language of this people. Therefore, it can be argued that the language is a kind of reflection of the culture of a nation, it carries the national-cultural code of a particular people. There are words in it, in the meaning of which a special part can be distinguished, reflecting the connection between language and culture, and which is called the cultural component of the semantics of a language unit. These words, first of all, include words-realities. It should be noted that sufficient attention has been paid to these linguistic units by both domestic and foreign researchers. As noted by S.I. Vlakhov and S.P. Florin, they drew attention to such “untranslatable” elements almost half a century ago (in 1960 their article “Realities” was published). Later, their book "The Untranslatable in Translation" was published, which presented a complete description, classification and methods of translating realities. Realities-Americanisms are the main object of GD Tomakhin's research. In textbooks on the theory of translation by L.S. Barkhudarov, V.N. Komissarov, V.N. Krupnov, L.K. Latysheva, T.R. .Fedorov also provides information on culturally marked words. Problems of relations between language and culture are also considered by E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov. The role of realia words in a work of art is paid attention to by N.I. Pamorozskaya and V.S. Vinogradov.

This work is devoted to the study of the realities of socio-political articles of the Euronews Internet edition based on their classification, transmission in translation and lexicographic description.

theme this course work are language realities and ways of their translation; This problem is one of the most controversial in translation studies.

Object of study are lexical units containing background information that are found in socio-political articles.

Relevance of this topic lies in the fact that the translator is faced with the problem of translating realities very often. Realities, referring to non-coinciding elements of the language, denoting concepts that are alien to other cultures, always present a particular difficulty in the translation process. These difficulties, on the other hand, provide interest in this problem. The object of the study is lexical units containing background information, which are found in socio-political articles of the Euronews Internet edition.

Methodological base studies are works devoted to the problems of words-realities.

aim is to analyze the ways of transferring English realities when translating original texts from English into Russian. Based on the purpose of the study, the following tasks were solved:

1. At the theoretical level:

Define the concept of the term "reality";

Consider existing classifications of realities;

Consider methods of transferring realities in translation.

2. On a practical level

Reveal English realities in newspaper articles

Determine the belonging of the identified realities to certain lexical categories;

Identify ways to convey realities;

Compare the realities in the original texts with the realities in the translated texts.

Goals and objectives determined structure works: introduction, theoretical part, practical part, conclusion, list of used literature. The introduction defines the topic, object, relevance, goals, objectives, methodological base, structure of the work.

Chapter one is devoted to realities as a linguistic phenomenon. It also provides an overview of existing classifications of realities and methods of translation.

The second chapter presents a classification of the realities identified in the socio-political articles of the Euronews Internet edition, and also analyzes the ways of their translation.

The conclusion contains the conclusions of the study.

1. Definition of linguistic reality:

1.1 Place of realities in language.

As a linguistic phenomenon, realities are classified as non-equivalent vocabulary. They are part of the background knowledge and are of significant interest in the study of the interaction of language and culture. According to O.S. Akhmanova, the term reality can be defined as

“1.... various factors studied by external linguistics, such as the state structure of a given country, the history and culture of a given people, language contacts of speakers of a given language in terms of their reflection in a given language;

1. objects of material culture ".

Schweitzer A.D. realia is understood as "units of the national language, denoting unique referents characteristic of a given linguoculture and absent in the compared linguocultural community" .

The word "realia" itself is a Latin adjective of the middle gender, a plural (realis-e; the plural realia is "real", "real"), which has turned into a noun under the influence of similar lexical categories. In reality, the closeness between language and culture is most clearly manifested. In general, reality is a very complex material, linguistic, grammatical and lexical concept. In terms of terminology, one should distinguish between "reality-object" and "reality-word", denoting it. In linguistic literature, the term "realia" is used both in the sense of the word-reality, and as an object-reality, as well as to designate an element of the vocabulary of a particular language.

1.2 Making sense of realities

From the standpoint of linguistic and regional studies and translation studies, the realities have undergone the most detailed study. In comparative linguistic and regional studies, realities are words denoting objects or phenomena related to the history or culture, economy or life of the country of the language being studied, which differ in whole or in part from the lexical concepts and words of the compared language. Among the realities in linguistic and regional studies include, firstly, onomastic realities, which include:

Geographical names (toponyms), especially those with cultural and historical associations;

Anthroponyms - the names of historical figures, public figures, writers, scientists, artists, popular athletes, characters in fiction and folklore;

Names of works of literature and art, historical facts and events in the life of the country, names of state public institutions and many others.

Secondly, the realities denoted by appellative vocabulary:

Geographical terms denoting features of the natural geographical environment, flora and fauna;

Some words (including general terms) related to the state structure, the socio-political life of the country, jurisprudence, military affairs, art, the education system, production and industrial relations, everyday life, customs and traditions. E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov addressed the realities in their studies, using the terms “background” and “connotative words”, “non-equivalent vocabulary”, or “words with a cultural component”, understanding them as lexical units, a kind of semantics which reflects the peculiarities of the national culture.

The researcher of country-oriented vocabulary G.D. Tomakhin, who compared the American version of the English language and the Russian language and the cultures behind them, uses the terms “denotative realities” and “connotative realities”. "Denotative realities", according to the definition of G.D. Tomakhin, are such facts of the language that denote objects and phenomena characteristic of a given culture that do not have correspondences in the compared culture. “Connotative realities”, in contrast to denotative ones, denote objects that are no different from similar objects of compared cultures, but have received additional meanings in a given culture and the language serving it, based on cultural and historical associations inherent only in this culture. To designate words-realities in translation studies, researchers have introduced such concepts as

- "non-equivalent vocabulary" - words that do not have equivalents outside the language to which they belong (G.V. Chernov, A.V. Fedorov);

- "exotic vocabulary" - lexical units denoting geographical and historical realities (A.E. Suprun);

- “barbarisms” - words with the help of which it becomes possible to describe foreign customs, features of life and life, the creation of local color (A.A. Reformatsky);

- "ethno-cultural vocabulary", "ethno-lexemes" - lexical units that characterize the system of knowledge about the specific culture of a certain people as a historical and ethnic community of people (L.A. Sheiman);

Recognizing the existence of a connection between language and culture, many researchers turn to the lexical-semantic level of the language, the units of which directly respond to changes in all spheres of human activity (E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov, M.A.K. Halliday, V.P. .Furmanova, E.Sapir, R.W.Langacker, A.Vezhbitskaya, S.G.TerMinasova).

With all the general conditions in the life of every nation, there are inherent, only inherent realities of culture, life, environment, which in a different culture (and conceptual system) correspond to complete or partial gaps.

All these realities are reflected in the language, primarily in the form of linguistic designations of these specific elements of civilization that bear a cultural imprint (in national verbal images).

To denote these realities, many terms have been developed: non-equivalent, incompletely equivalent vocabulary (E.M. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov, V.N. Krupnov), realities (G.D. Tomakhin, V.V. Oshchepkova, S. Vlakhov, S. Florin), gaps (V.A. Muravyov, Yu.A. Sorokin), background vocabulary (G.D. Tomakhin, Yu.A. Vorobyov, V.V. Oshchepkova), national verbal images (V.V. Oshchepkova), exotic vocabulary (V.P. Berkov), culturemes (V.V. Vorobyov), etc.

The translation of realities is part of a large and important problem of conveying national and historical identity, which goes back to the very birth of the theory of translation as an independent discipline.

All the theorists of translation have touched and still touch this area, and the supporters of untranslatability adopted their arguments from it. They started talking about realities in the early 50s. XX century, when some linguists introduced this concept into the theory of translation, but most often scientists still use a different, broader name “non-equivalent vocabulary”. It is used by Ya.I. Retsker, I.S. Alekseeva, A.V. Fedorov and others.

The word "realia" itself is a Latin adjective of the neuter plural (realis, e, pl. realia - "real", "real"), which has turned into a feminine noun in Russian under the influence of similar lexical categories. They designate an object, a thing, materially existing or existing. According to the dictionary of linguistic terms, reality is a variety of factors - such as the state structure of a given country, the history and culture of a given people, language contacts of native speakers of a given language, as well as the subject of material culture, which serve as the basis for the nomitative meaning of the word.

In every language, there are realities in almost all spheres of human activity. The socio-political structure of society, its culture, history, customs and traditions, the system of production and education, everyday life - this is not a complete list of areas that can be "suppliers" of realities.

GD Tomakhin designates realities as the names of objects of material culture inherent only to certain nations and peoples, historical facts, state institutions, names of national and folklore heroes, mythological creatures, etc. .

When comparing languages, words denoting these phenomena are classified as non-equivalent vocabulary, i.e. words that are absent in another culture and, as a rule, are not translated from the source language (FL) into another language (TL) in a word, do not have equivalents outside the language to which they belong. They are not inherent in the practical experience of people who speak another language. Translators have to resort to lengthy descriptions or offer their own neologisms such as elevated railroad (similar to "underground"), victrola - Victrola (a player of a certain brand; Victor is the name of a company that produces radio and television equipment); bookmaker - bookmaker (a person who accepts mortgages from the public at races and races).

Non-equivalent vocabulary is relatively easy to identify when comparing languages, because it most clearly manifests the specificity of the division of reality in a given language and the specificity of its culture.

If non-equivalent vocabulary refers to the designations of the realities of not only everyday life, but also the names of the features of the state-political system, various spheres of the industrial and cultural life of the people, then the number of realities in the language of each people is quite large.

When comparing languages ​​and cultures, one can distinguish between the signifiers (other realities) and the signifiers (other forms). Differences in the signified are observed in the following cases:

1) Reality is characteristic of only one language community, and it is absent in another (Am. Drug store)

2) Realia is present in both language communities, but in one of them it is not specially noted (Am. Clover leaf - Russian. Road junction in the form of a clover leaf).

3) In different societies, similar functions are carried out by different realities (functional similarity of different realities) (Am. Hot dog - Russian pie)

4) Similar realities are functionally different. So, siskoo's call "cuckoo chirping" in the popular beliefs of Americans predicts how many years the girl has left before the wedding, in Russians - how many years are left to live.

In comparative linguistic and regional studies, realities are words denoting objects or phenomena related to the history, culture, economy and life of the country of the language being studied, which differ in whole or in part from the lexical concepts of the words of the compared language.

In realities, the closeness between language and culture is most clearly manifested: the emergence of new realities in the material and spiritual life of society leads to the emergence of realities in the language, and the time of the appearance of new realities can be established quite accurately, since vocabulary is sensitive to all changes in social life.

In comparison with other words of the language, the hallmark of realia is the close connection of the object, concept, phenomenon denoted by reality with the people (country), on the one hand, and the historical period of time, on the other. It follows from this that the realities are inherent in the corresponding national (local) or historical flavor.

Thus, reality is a word or phrase that names an object characteristic of the life (everyday life, culture, social and historical development) of one people and alien to another. Being a carrier of national color and a necessary component of the translator's background knowledge, it does not have exact matches (equivalents) in other languages ​​and is not amenable to conventional translation, requiring special techniques.