Stereotypes in Czech phraseology. Nations and ethnic groups

Open access


The starting point for this study is that (the majority of) conventional figurative units (CFUs) are conceptual in nature and that they somehow record and preserve the knowledge and even worldview of diverse cultures. The aim of this paper is to take a first step towards answering the question whether it is true not only that phraseology preserves the way a given culture understands the world (or understood it in the past), but if it works the other way round, i.e. if people using/knowing CFUs involving stereotypes - in this case, Czech idioms and collocations regarding nations and ethnic groups - tend to extend these stereotypes and attitudes beyond the linguistic sphere. For this purpose a survey questionnaire was created, by means of which the stereotypes underlying a varied sample of 13 Czech CFUs were related to the prejudices of the respondents

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • BARTMIŃSKI J. 2009. Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics. London and Oakville CT.: Equinox.

  • BORODITSKY L. 2011a. How languages construct time. In: S. Dehaene and E. Brannon eds. Space time and number in the brain. Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought. Amsterdam: Elsevier p. 333-341.

  • BORODITSKY L. 2011b. How language shapes thought. The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American Magazine February 2011 p. 63-65.

  • ČERMÁK F. et al. 2009a. Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky. 2. Výrazy neslovesné. Praha: Leda.

  • ČERMÁK F. et al. 2009b. Slovník české frazeologie a idiomatiky. 3. Výrazy slovesné. Praha: Leda.

  • DOBROVOL'SKIJ D. and PIIRAINEN E. 2005. Figurative language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • FAUSEY C. M. LONG B. L. INAMORI A. and LERA BORODITSKY. 2010. Constructing agency: the role of language. Frontiers in Psychology 1:162. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2010.00162.

  • FILLMORE C. J. 2006. Frame semantics. In: D. Geeraerts ed. Cognitive linguistics: basic readings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 373-400.

  • FUHRMAN O. McCORMICK K. CHEN E. JIANG H. SHU D. MAO S. and BORODITSKY L. 2011. How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D. Cognitive Science vol. 35 pp. 1305-1328.

  • GUTIÉRREZ RUBIO E. 2013. Fraseología y estereotipos en español. ¿Una relación bidireccional? Language Design vol. 15 pp. 119-136.

  • HILL J. H. and MANNHEIM B. 1992. Language and world view. Annual Review of Anthropology vol. 21 pp. 381-406.

  • KAY P. and KEMPTON W. 1984. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist vol. 86 no. 1 pp. 65-79.

  • KLIMOVÁ K. and MANAI A. G. E. 2009. Le differenze e le somiglianze culturali come fonte di malintesi comunicativi tra italiano e slovacco. In: M. Arcangeli ed. Lingua italiana d’oggi. Roma: Bulzoni Editore pp. 369-380.

  • KÖVECSES Z. 2002. Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • LAKOFF G. 1987. Women fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • LUQUE DURÁN J. D. 2009. Estereotipos automatismos y juegos del lenguaje en el Diccionario Cultural. In: L. Luque Toro ed. Léxico Español Actual II Venezia: Cafoscarina pp. 109-130.

  • McGEE R. J. and WARMS R. L. eds. 2013. Theory in social and cultural anthropology: An encyclopedia. Los Angeles: SAGE.

  • MILLS S. 2008. Language and sexism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • OAKLEY A. 2000. Pohlaví gender a společnost. Praha: Portál.

  • PAJDZIŃSKA A. 2007. Kategorie strukturující jazykový obraz světa: antropocentrismus a opozice “vlastní” - “cizí”. In: L. Saicová Římalová ed. Čítanka textů z kognitivní lingvistiky II. Praha: Univerzita Karlova pp. 27-44.

  • SAPIR E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of the speech. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company.

  • SAPIR E. 2008. The status of linguistics as a science (1929). In: P. Swiggers ed. The collected works of Edward Sapir. 1 General linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 219-226.

  • SCHOLZE-STUBENRECHT W. 2008. Duden. Band 11 Redewendungen. Wörterbuch der deutschen Idiomatik. Mannheim and Zürich: Dudenverlag. [DUDEN 11]

  • SECO M. et al. 2006. Diccionario fraseológico documentado del español actual: locuciones y modismos españoles. Madrid: Santillana. [DFEA]

  • VALEŠ M. 2010. Observaciones sociolingüísticas del español. Metodología variación y prestigio. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

  • VAŇKOVÁ I. 2010. Úvodem: na cestě ke kognitivní (etno)lingvistice. Slovo a slovesnost no.4 pp. 245-249.

  • WALTER E. ed. 2002. Cambridge nternational ictionary of dioms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CIDI] WHORF B. L. 1978. Science and linguistics (1940). In: J. B. Carroll ed. Language thought and reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: M.I.T pp. 207-219.

  • ZINKEN J. 2004. Metaphors stereotypes and the linguistic picture of the world: Impulses from the Ethnolinguistic School of Lublin. 7 pp. 115-136.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 292 180 5
PDF Downloads 155 107 3