Cognitive Phytonymic Metaphor as a Means of Describing a Person’s Appearance in Russian and Chinese Linguocultures

The article deals with the cognitive phytonymic metaphor, which forms the plant code in Russian and Chinese linguocultures. A cognitive metaphor, i.e. conceptual metaphor (G. Lakoff, M. Johnson), establishes stable correspondences between the source and the target domains, which are fixed in a linguoculture. This paper investigates the cognitive phytonymic metaphor as a way of interpreting and cognizing reality and, at the same time, as one of the most effective means of creating and representing a linguistic worldview. Considering phytonyms and the plant concepts they are naming as the source domain and the person as the target domain, the cognitive phytonymic metaphor activates a metaphorical mapping that reflects the plant code of culture as part of the coordinate system of linguocultures. The significance of analysing the cognitive mechanisms of the phytonymic metaphor lies in revealing the commonality and individuality of the national linguistic consciousness and values of the two peoples, embodied in the fragments of their linguistic worldviews. The study aimed to identify the characteristic features of the perception of the plant world by members of the Russian and Chinese national linguocultural communities. To achieve this aim, the following tasks were solved: firstly, phytonyms in the two linguocultures were studied as a means of describing a person’s external characteristics; secondly, based on phytomorphisms, a comparative analysis was performed of the cognitive mechanisms of the phytonymic metaphor in Russian and Chinese linguistic worldviews; thirdly, factors contributing to the emergence of differences between cognitive phytonymic metaphors in the two linguocultures were identified. The research concludes that, in most cases, when comparing phytonymic metaphors in the two linguocultures one will find discrepancies, including asymmetry and nonequivalence. Such factors as geographical environment, religion, history, national culture, way of thinking and hierarchy of peoples’ values can have a great influence on the formation of differences between cognitive phytonymic metaphors in the two linguocultures.