Modern problems of science and education. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world

Language and "picture of the world"

As you know, the most powerful means of expressing thought is human language. Since ancient times, many scientists have been interested in the problem of the relationship between language and thinking. The views of representatives of the logical school were dominant, according to which there was a complete identity between the categories of language and thinking. One of the sciences most progressively dealing with the issue of human thinking today is linguistics. Within its framework, the problem of correlating thinking and language comes to the fore first of all: what is the understanding of linguistic phenomena? What happens to the statement, its units and the elements of these units when they are meaningfully perceived? In the history of linguistics, this is one of the main unresolved problems along with the problem of the origin of language. To try to answer these questions, an approach to the interaction of thinking and language is often applied primarily from the side of semiotics - the science of signs. To understand how thinking functions, it is necessary to consider that in which it has its reflection - language. Language is the main of human sign systems, the most important means of human communication. K. Marx, for example, called the language " immediate reality thoughts ". With the help of words, you can interpret other sign systems (for example, you can describe a picture). Language is a universal material that people use to explain the world and form one or another of its models. Although an artist can do this with the help of visual images, but musician - with the help of sounds, but all of them are armed, first of all, with signs of a universal code - language.

The concept of a picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts that express the specifics of a person and his being, his relationship with the world, the most important condition for his existence in the world.

The relationship between language and the picture of the world is one of the most important problems of both linguistics and, in its most general terms, philosophy: ontology, theory of knowledge, in essence, all the main aspects of philosophical thought. Since a person receives the most important knowledge about the world and about himself on the basis of discursive thinking, the role of language as the most important means of cognition, the ability of linguistic thinking to reflect the actual objective and subjective reality is one of the key problems of ontology and epistemology, philosophical thought in general.

If in antiquity and the Middle Ages in European culture religion played a unifying role in intercultural and interethnic communication, and in the Renaissance - art, then in modern times this role was increasingly transferred to science. Despite the fact that in the XIX century. in Europe, moralists acquired special weight, and in the twentieth century. - politics, the role of science has increased in the last two centuries. Thus, the 20th century became the century of an unprecedented scientific and technological revolution. However, science must rise to the position of cultural dominant in the modern world in the future. Under favorable conditions, the scientific picture of the world will become the leading factor in cultural evolution as a whole. But it also has a competitor - the language picture of the world.

The linguistic picture of the world reflects ordinary consciousness. This consciousness, like religious consciousness, retains in itself many archaic features - features that cannot be compatible with scientific ideas. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world was introduced into science in the 19th century. Wilhelm von Humboldt in his doctrine of the inner form of language. The essence of this teaching was the assertion that in its content, any language reflects the worldview of its speakers - a particular people. W. Humboldt insisted on the active role of language in relation to thinking. He believed that along with their native language, children also learn the worldview embedded in this language. In the first half of the twentieth century. The hypothesis of linguistic relativity was created by the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. They brought the idea of W. Humboldt about the influence of language on the worldview of its speakers to the limit, insisting that we study the world in the directions that are given to us by our native language, and not by the structure of the objective world itself. Moreover, they believed that the degree of mutual understanding between people speaking different languages depends on the proximity of the worldviews contained in their languages. A similar position in German philosophy language was occupied by Leo Weisgerber. He is the author of the very term “linguistic picture of the world”. The central concept of his teaching about the language picture of the world is the concept of verbalization (or conditioning) of the world. Observations have shown that different languages divide the world in different ways with the help of words (that is, they verbalize it differently). So, if the Russian word “hand” covers the entire forelimb of a person as a whole, then in English this limb is divided in two using the words “hand” and “arm”. In turn, different languages divide the color spectrum in different ways. So, the Vietnamese word "hanh" means three colors at once - blue, cyan and green, and the English "blue" - two colors - blue and cyan. But it is the same with the verbalization of the whole world. Word structures in different languages turn out to be asymmetric. L. Weisgerber made an extreme conclusion from this that it is not the structure of the world that determines our worldview, but our language. The latter was interpreted by him as a window to the world. He considered the power of the linguistic picture of the world over a person to be so strong that he, like B. Whorf, gave it priority in relation to the scientific picture of the world. Meanwhile, back in the 17th century. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote: “Language is like a web: weak minds cling to words and get entangled in them, while strong minds easily break through them.”

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution of higher professional education

Kuzbass State Pedagogical Academy

Faculty of Foreign Languages

Department of English Language and Teaching Methods

on the course "Psycholinguistics"

The concept of a linguistic picture of the world

Completed:

2nd year student, 2 groups

Kucherov A.A.

Checked by: Ph.D., Associate Professor

Sokolova O. V.

Novokuznetsk, 2011

Introduction

1.Language picture of the world

2.Conceptual picture of the world as the basis for understanding the meaning of a speech work

.The relationship of pictures of the world

.Components of the national picture of the world

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

The theme of the presented work is "The concept of the language picture of the world"

Over the past decades, both in Russia and in the world, there has been a growing interest in the study of culture from the standpoint of linguistics and psycholinguistics, primarily to what is behind the language, speech, speech activity, i.e. to the person himself as a carrier as a subject of speech activity. A person, as a bearer of a certain culture and speaking a certain language, is considered in close relationship with the bearer of cultures and languages of the peoples of the world.

Researchers approach the consideration of the national and cultural specificity of certain aspects or fragments of the world picture from different positions: some take the source language as the source language, analyze the established facts of interlingual similarities or divergences through the prism of linguistic systemicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the source is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguocultural community, and the image of the world is in the center of attention. There are often cases when the fundamental differences between these two approaches are simply not noticed, or when the declared study of the image of the world is actually replaced by a description of the linguistic picture of the world from the standpoint of the language system. Since below we will talk about studies carried out from the standpoint of different approaches, it seems justified to use the term “picture of the world” as a neutral one, accompanying it with the clarification “linguistic” or replacing the word “picture” with the word “image”.

The relevance of the study of the national and cultural specifics of the picture of the world has recently been recognized by world science and practice, which is in good agreement with the general tendency of various sciences to place culture at the center of theoretical constructions, one way or another related to the study of man. The problem of language and culture concerns the very development of the science of language, which at present is not confined within its own linguistic structure and requires consideration of extralinguistic factors. This gives rise to such branches of linguistics as anthropological linguistics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics, linguoculturology and a number of others.

A concrete study of how the person himself as a national personality in all the diversity of his manifestations was reflected in linguistic units is relevant.

Goals of the work:

) study of the picture of the world and its components;

) define constituent elements national linguistic personality;

The practical value of the study lies in the fact that the results obtained can be used in teaching theoretical and special courses in general and comparative linguistics, language typology, psycholinguistics, lexicology, linguoculturology, in the practice of teaching foreign languages and in compiling various kinds of dictionaries and teaching aids, and also for the development of topics for diploma and term papers.

1. LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

The linguistic picture of the world, historically formed in the ordinary consciousness of a given linguistic community and reflected in the language, is a set of ideas about the world, a certain way of conceptualizing reality. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world goes back to the ideas of W. von Humboldt and Weisgerber about the internal form of language. Each person has a subjective image of a certain object, which does not completely coincide with the image of the same object in another person. This representation can be objectified only by making "a way for itself through the mouth into the external world." The word, therefore, carries a load of subjective ideas, the differences of which are within certain limits, since their carriers are members of the same linguistic community, have a certain national character and consciousness.

The merit of L. Weisgerber lies in the fact that he introduced the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" into the scientific terminological system. This concept determined the originality of his linguo-philosophical concept, along with the "intermediate world" and "energy" of language.

The main characteristics of the linguistic picture of the world, which L. Weisgerber gives it, are the following:

The linguistic picture of the world is a system of all possible contents: spiritual, which determine the uniqueness of the culture and mentality of a given linguistic community, and linguistic, which determine the existence and functioning of the language itself,

The linguistic picture of the world, on the one hand, is a consequence of the historical development of the ethnos and language, and, on the other hand, is the cause of a peculiar way of their further development,

The linguistic picture of the world as a single "living organism" is clearly structured and in linguistic expression is multi-level. It defines a special set of sounds and sound combinations, structural features of the articulatory apparatus of native speakers, prosodic characteristics of speech, vocabulary, word-formation capabilities of the language and the syntax of phrases and sentences, as well as its own paremiological baggage. In other words, the linguistic picture of the world determines the total communicative behavior, understanding of the external world of nature and the inner world of man and the language system,

The linguistic picture of the world is changeable in time and, like any "living organism", is subject to development, that is, in the vertical (diachronic) sense, it is partly non-identical to itself at each subsequent stage of development,

The linguistic picture of the world creates the homogeneity of the linguistic essence, contributing to the consolidation of linguistic, and hence its cultural originality in the vision of the world and its designation by means of language,

The linguistic picture of the world exists in a homogeneous, original self-consciousness of the linguistic community and is transmitted to subsequent generations through a special worldview, rules of conduct, lifestyle, imprinted by means of language,

The picture of the world of any language is that transformative power of the language, which forms the idea of the surrounding world through the language as an "intermediate world" among the speakers of this language,

The linguistic picture of the world of a particular linguistic community is its general cultural heritage.

The perception of the world is carried out by thinking, but with the participation of means mother tongue. L. Weisgerber's way of reflecting reality is idioethnic in nature and corresponds to the static form of the language. In fact, the scientist emphasizes the intersubjective part of the individual’s thinking: “There is no doubt that many of the views and ways of behavior and attitudes that have taken root in us turn out to be “learned”, that is, socially conditioned, as soon as we trace the scope of their manifestation around the world.” Modern ideas about JKM are as follows.

Language is a fact of culture, an integral part of the culture that we inherit, and at the same time its tool. The culture of the people is verbalized in the language, it is the language that accumulates the key concepts of culture, broadcasting them in a symbolic embodiment - words. The model of the world created by the language is a subjective image of the objective world; it carries the features of the human way of understanding the world, i.e. anthropocentrism that permeates the entire language.

This point of view is shared by V.A. Maslova: “The linguistic picture of the world is the general cultural heritage of the nation, it is structured, multi-level. It is the linguistic picture of the world that determines communicative behavior, understanding the external world and the inner world of a person. It reflects the way of speech and thought activity, characteristic of a particular era, with its spiritual, cultural and national values.

The concept of a naive linguistic picture of the world, according to Yu.D. Apresyan, “represents the ways of perceiving and conceptualizing the world reflected in the natural language, when the basic concepts of the language are formed into a single system of views, a kind of collective philosophy, which is imposed as a must on all native speakers.

The linguistic picture of the world, as G.V. Kolshansky, is based on the peculiarities of the social and labor experience of each people. Ultimately, these features find their expression in the differences in the lexical and grammatical nomination of phenomena and processes, in the compatibility of certain meanings, in their etymology (the choice of the initial feature in the nomination and formation of the meaning of the word), etc. in the language “the whole variety of creative cognitive activity of a person (social and individual) is fixed”, which lies precisely in the fact that “in accordance with the boundless number of conditions that are a stimulus in his directed cognition, each time he chooses and fixes one of the countless properties of objects and phenomena and their connections. It is this human factor that is clearly visible in all language formations, both in the norm and in its deviations and individual styles.

So, the concept of JKM includes two related, but different ideas:

The picture of the world offered by the language differs from the “scientific” one, and each language draws its own picture, depicting reality in a slightly different way than other languages do. The reconstruction of LCM is one of the most important tasks of modern linguistic semantics. The study of the JCM is carried out in two directions, in accordance with the named two components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systemic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a particular language, a complete system of representations reflected in a given language is reconstructed, regardless of whether it is specific to a given language or universal, reflecting a “naive” view of the world as opposed to a “scientific” one. On the other hand, separate language-specific (linguo-specific) concepts are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they give a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages. : a translation equivalent is either completely absent (as, for example, for Russian words longing, anguish, maybe, daring, will, restless, sincerity, ashamed, insulting, uncomfortable), or such an equivalent exists in principle, but it does not contain exactly those components of the meaning , which are specific for a given word (such, for example, are the Russian words soul, fate, happiness, justice, vulgarity, separation, resentment, pity, morning, gather, get, as it were).

national speech world personality

2. CONCEPTUAL PICTURE OF THE WORLD AS A BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF A SPEECH PRODUCT

A person as a subject of cognition is the bearer of a certain system of knowledge, ideas, opinions about objective reality. This system in different sciences has its own name (picture of the world, conceptual system of the world, model of the world, image of the world) and is considered in different aspects.

The concept of "picture of the world" is one of the fundamental ones, expressing the specifics of a person and his being, his relationship with the world, the most important conditions for his existence in the world.

Appeal to the concept of "picture of the world" emphasizes the activity approach to understanding the process of the relationship of the individual with reality, focuses on the content-ontological aspects of the study.

Promoting close connection and unity of knowledge and behavior of people in society, this global image of the world is a natural universal mediator between different spheres of human culture and thus acts as an effective means of integrating people in society.

The picture of the world is created as a result of two different procedures:

) explication, extraction, objectification, objectification and comprehension of the images of the world that underlie life;

) creation, creation, development of new images of the world, carried out in the course of special reflection, which is systematic.

According to E.D. Suleimenova, the picture of the world “is created thanks to the cognitive activity of a person and the reflective ability of his thinking”, she considers integrity to be the most important property of the picture of the world, and the element is the meaning, characterized by invariance, relevance, subjectivity, incomplete explication, inaccessibility to full perception, continuity, dynamism. The picture of the world is an extremely complex phenomenon; it is variable, changeable. At the same time, it has constants inherent in each individual, ensuring mutual understanding of people.

A concept is information about the actual “or possible state of things in the world (that is, what an individual knows, assumes, thinks, imagines about the objects of the world)”.

The conceptual system, according to R.I. Pavilenis, is characterized by the following properties:

) the sequence of introduction of concepts; the concepts available in the system are the basis for the introduction of new ones;

) continuity in the construction of the conceptual system;

) continuity of the conceptual system: the introduced concept is interpreted by all the concepts of the system, although with varying degrees of compatibility, which ensures its continuous connection with all other concepts.

Thus, the essence of the conceptual system, according to I. Pavilenis, lies in the systematized representation of the knowledge and opinions of the individual, corresponding to intersubjective and subjective information.

Analyzing the theory of the conceptual system R.I. Pavilenis, V.A. Pishchalnikova notes that the concept includes both psychological meaning and personal meaning. . The core of this formation is the concept - a generalization of objects of a certain class according to their specific characteristics. The existence of the intersubjective part in each component of the concept provides the possibility of communication between the carriers of different CSs. It is generally recognized that the process of operating with concepts is inextricably linked with the use of language, which determines the presence of a language component (sign body) in the concept, which, in turn, includes phonosemantic, expressive, associative and other components. And since the concept is related to some object of reality, the concept includes the component "subject content" (referential correlation). Thus, the language appears as one of the components of the concept. “The meanings of words and other meaningful units of the language learned by the subject are included in the corresponding concept of the system as one of its components and are capable, along with other components of the concept (visual, auditory, etc.), to represent the concept as a whole. Therefore, the perception of a linguistic sign actualizes the subjective figurative, conceptual, emotional information contained in the concept, and vice versa, any kind of such information can be associated with a sign. Meaning is understood as a constituent of consciousness, uniting "visual, tactile, auditory, gustatory, verbal and other possible characteristics of an object" .

Thus, the conceptual picture of the world is a system of information about objects, actually and potentially represented in the activity of an individual. The unit of information of such a system is the concept, the function of which is to fix and update the conceptual, emotional, associative, verbal, cultural and other content of the objects of reality included in the structure of the conceptual picture of the world. The problem of understanding should be considered first of all as the problem of understanding the world by the subject on the basis of his conceptual picture of the world, which is objectified and presented in his activity.

INTERRELATION OF PICTURES OF THE WORLD

Modern authors define the picture of the world as “a global image of the world that underlies a person’s worldview, that is, expressing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of a person as a result of his spiritual and cognitive activity” (Postovalova; 21). But the "world" should be understood not only as a visual reality, or the reality surrounding a person, but as consciousness-reality in a harmonious symbiosis of their unity for a person.

The picture of the world is the central concept of the concept of man, expresses the specifics of his existence. The concept of a picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts that express the specifics of human existence, its relationship with the world, the most important conditions for its existence in the world. The picture of the world is a holistic image of the world, which is the result of all human activity. It arises in a person in the course of all his contacts and interactions with the outside world. It can be everyday contacts with the world, and subject-practical activity of a person. Since all aspects of a person’s mental activity take part in the formation of a picture of the world, starting with sensations, perceptions, ideas and ending with a person’s thinking, it is very difficult to talk about any one process associated with the formation of a person’s picture of the world. Man contemplates the world, comprehends it, feels, cognizes, reflects. As a result of these processes, a person has an image of the world, or worldview.

"Imprints" of the picture of the world can be found in language, in gestures, in fine arts, music, rituals, etiquette, things, facial expressions, in people's behavior. The picture of the world forms the type of a person's attitude to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms for a person's behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life (Apresyan; 45).

As for the reflection of the picture of the world in the language, the introduction of the concept of "picture of the world" into anthropological linguistics allows us to distinguish between two types of human influence on the language - the influence of psychophysiological and other kinds of human characteristics on the constitutive properties of the language and the influence on the language of various pictures of the world - religious and mythological, philosophical, scientific, artistic.

Language is directly involved in two processes related to the picture of the world. Firstly, in its depths a linguistic picture of the world is formed, one of the deepest layers of a person's picture of the world. Secondly, the language itself expresses and explicates other pictures of the human world, which, through special vocabulary enter the language, bringing into it the features of a person, his culture. With the help of language, the experiential knowledge acquired by individual individuals is transformed into a collective property, a collective experience. Each of the pictures of the world, which as a displayed fragment of the world represents the language as a special phenomenon, sets its own vision of the language and in its own way determines the principle of the language. The study and comparison of different visions of the language through the prisms of different pictures of the world can offer linguistics new ways to penetrate into the nature of the language and its knowledge.

The linguistic picture of the world is an image of consciousness - reality reflected by the means of language, a model of integral knowledge about the conceptual system of representations represented by the language. It is customary to delimit the linguistic picture of the world from the conceptual or cognitive model of the world, which is the basis of the linguistic embodiment, the verbal conceptualization of the totality of human knowledge about the world. The linguistic or naive picture of the world is also commonly interpreted as a reflection of everyday, philistine ideas about the world. The idea of a naive model of the world is as follows: every natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving the world, which is imposed as a must on all native speakers. Yu.D. Apresyan calls the linguistic picture of the world naive in the sense that scientific definitions and linguistic interpretations do not always coincide in volume and even content (Apresyan; 357). The conceptual picture of the world or the “model” of the world, unlike the linguistic one, is constantly changing, reflecting the results of cognitive and social activity, but individual fragments of the linguistic picture of the world retain for a long time the surviving, relic ideas of people about the universe.

As noted above, the perception of the surrounding world partly depends on the cultural and national characteristics of the speakers of a particular language. Therefore, from the point of view of ethnology, linguoculturology and other related areas, the most interesting thing is to establish the causes of discrepancies in the linguistic pictures of the world, and these discrepancies do exist. The solution of such a question is going beyond the limits of linguistics and deepening into the secrets of the knowledge of the world by other peoples. There are a great many reasons for such discrepancies, but only a few of them seem to be visible, and therefore - the main ones. There are three main factors or causes of language differences: nature, culture, knowledge. Let's consider these factors.

The first factor is nature. Nature is, first of all, the external conditions of people's lives, which are reflected in different ways in languages. A person gives names to those animals, localities, plants that are known to him, to the state of nature that he feels. Natural conditions dictate to the linguistic consciousness of a person the features of perception, even such phenomena as the perception of color. The designation of color varieties is often motivated by semantic features of the visual perception of objects of the surrounding nature. A particular natural object is associated with one or another color. AT different languages Other cultures have their own associations associated with color designations, which coincide in some ways, but also differ from each other in some ways (Apresyan; 351).

The second factor is culture. “Culture is what a person did not receive from the natural world, but brought, made, created himself” (Manakin; 51). The results of material and spiritual activity, socio-historical, aesthetic, moral and other norms and values that distinguish different generations and social communities are embodied in various conceptual and linguistic ideas about the world. Any feature of the cultural sphere is fixed in the language. Also, linguistic differences can be determined by national rites, customs, rituals, folklore and mythological representations, symbols. Cultural models, conceptualized in certain names, spread throughout the world and become known even to those who are not familiar with the culture of a particular people. A lot of special works and studies have recently been devoted to this problem.

Epistemological, cultural and other features of linguistic conceptualization are closely related, and their demarcation is always conditional and approximate. This applies both to the differences in the methods of nomination, and to the specifics of the linguistic division of the world.

It should be taken into account that the perception of this or that situation, this or that object is also directly dependent on the subject of perception, on his background knowledge, experience, expectations, on where he himself is located, what is directly in his field of vision. This, in turn, makes it possible to describe the same situation from different points of view, perspectives, which undoubtedly expands the understanding of it. No matter how subjective the process of "designing the world" is, it nonetheless directly involves taking into account the most diverse objective aspects of the situation, the real state of affairs in the world; the consequence of this process is the creation of a “subjective image of the objective world”

When evaluating the picture of the world, it should be understood that it is not a reflection of the world and not a window to the world, but it is a person's interpretation of the world around him, a way of his understanding of the world. “Language is by no means a simple mirror of the world, and therefore it captures not only what is perceived, but also meaningful, conscious, interpreted by a person” (Kubryakova; 95). This means that the world for a person is not only what he perceived through his senses. On the contrary, a more or less significant part of this world is made up of the subjective results of a person's interpretation of what is perceived. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that language is a “mirror of the world”, but this mirror is not ideal: it does not represent the world directly, but in the subjective cognitive refraction of a community of people.

As you can see, there are many interpretations of the concept of "language picture of the world". This is due to the existing discrepancies in the worldviews of different languages, since the perception of the surrounding world depends on the cultural and national characteristics of the speakers of a particular language. Each of the pictures of the world sets its own vision of the language, so it is very important to distinguish between the concepts of "scientific (conceptual) picture of the world" and "linguistic (naive) picture of the world".

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL PICTURE OF THE WORLD

FRAME. The presentation of text as a hierarchy of frames reflects the patterns of text construction and distribution of information. Frame analysis makes it possible to build a hierarchical system of semantic relationships within the text. For the frame representation of the text semantics, it is necessary to define transformation operations that change its content, and when saving the form, to define convolution operations.

The frame-situation is formed by ideas about the prototypical situation and its elements that have fixed roles and positions. Semantic frame management models affect certain requirements for the context, the immediate semantic and syntactic environment of a language unit. The contextual norm is a kind of stereotype. Expectations are determined by knowledge of the standard context and situation. When filling variables, the situational context is taken into account, which allows us to talk about context-based strategies for filling the base frame, i.e. there is an attribution of management models to specific lexical units. Insufficient specification of the context leads to the introduction of "clarifying" details.

Each frame-situation is a more or less complete list of concepts that allows you to act correctly / adequately in this situation. The following conditions are involved in determining the correspondence/non-compliance of a text element with any frame selected as a limiter of element compatibility:

compatibility of concept and frame in the individual conceptual system of the individual;

defining attribute: the actual attribute for the properties and characteristics of the element, limiting attribute, evaluating attribute;

typification of processes/actions and relations according to the identity or similarity of models for managing the semantic structure of the frame.

These conditions relate to the features of the frame and the semantic conditions for filling its nodes, which regulate semantic compatibility. Assigning a meaning to a word, a specific semantic and syntactic control that ensures the reproducibility and effectiveness of a particular act of communication, allows us to talk about role semantics and consider the features of filling frame nodes, for example, in translation.

Frame script

The representation of knowledge about the world with the help of frames is very fruitful in explaining the mechanisms of human understanding of natural language, reasoning, narratives, observed actions of another person, etc.

In the work of M. Minsky, in this case, it is proposed to build knowledge about the world in the form of frames-scenarios. A frame-scenario according to M. Minsky is a typical structure for some action, the concept of an event, etc., including the characteristic elements of this action of the concept, event. For example, a script frame for a child's birthday event includes the following elements, which can be thought of as frame nodes filled with absence tasks:

Clothes: Sunday, the best;

Gift: must like.

To explain a person's quick understanding of the situation represented by the scenario, the work of R. Schenk, R. Abelson proposes to identify the terminals of the frame-scenario with the most characteristic questions usually associated with this situation. The answers to these questions are useful for understanding this situation. Essentially, a frame scenario in this case is a collection of questions to be asked about some hypothetical situation, and ways to answer them.

For a scenario frame - a child's birthday, such questions will include the following: What should guests wear? Have you chosen a gift for the child? Will he like the gift? Where to buy a gift? Where to get money? etc.

In order to understand the action that is being told or observed, a person is often forced to ask the following questions:

"Who performs the action (agent)?"

“What is the purpose of the action (intention)?”

"What are the consequences (effect)?"

“Who is affected by this action (recipient)?”

“How is it made (instrument)?”

With regard to understanding things other than actions, slightly different questions are asked, and these questions can be much less localized than in the case of understanding actions, for example: “Why are they telling me this?”, “How can I find out more about X?” etc. As the story progresses, they ask what is the theme, what is the attitude of the author, what is the main event, who is the main character, etc. As each question is tentatively answered, new frames can be recalled from memory corresponding to the situations that arise as a result. answers to questions. Questions - the terminals of these new frames become active in turn.

It should be noted that the number of questions associated with the frame is indefinite, and at first glance it seems that there can be a lot of them to understand the situation. However, in practice it turns out to be enough to ask very few questions to understand the situation.

In the case of script frames, the frame terminal markers become more complex than they were in the case of image frames, and provide recommendations on how to answer questions, i.e., fill the terminal with a task. Each terminal should contain recommendations on how to find its task - the answer to the question. Absence items or a list of possible answers to questions are the simplest special cases of such recommendations. Apparently, a person can have a hierarchical set of such recommendations, similar to the preference schemes proposed in the work of J. Wilks (1973).

Scenario restaurant

Roles: visitor, waitress, chef, cashier.

Purpose: to get food to satisfy hunger

Scene I. Entrance

Enter the restaurant, direct your eyes to where there are empty tables, choose where to sit, go to the table, sit down.

Scene II. Order

Scene III. Food

Get food, eat food.

Scene IV. Care

Ask for the bill, pay the check, go to the cashier, pay the money, leave the restaurant.

Thus, a script is not just a chain of events, but rather a connected causal chain of actions. It can branch out into many possible paths that converge at points that are especially characteristic of the scenario - elementary actions. For a scenario in a restaurant, these actions are "eating" and "paying money."

You need headers to know when to use a script. These headings define the circumstances under which the script is invoked.

A stereotype is a certain “representation” of a fragment of the surrounding reality, a fixed mental “image”, which is the result of a “typical” fragment of the real world reflected in the consciousness of the individual, a certain invariant of a certain part of the picture of the world. However, a stereotype as a representation can act in 2 forms: as a certain scenario of the situation and as the actual representation, i. not only as a canon, but also as a standard. In the first case, the stereotype is a stereotype of behavior, such a stereotype performs a prescriptive function, it determines the behavior and actions that should be carried out. in the second case, the stereotype acts as a representational stereotype. Such a stereotype performs a predictive function: it determines what should be expected in a given situation. So, for example, the stereotype representation of the queue includes screaming, anger, aggression, rudeness, i.e. what can be "expected" from the queue. But this does not mean at all that, while standing in line, I should behave the same way. In other words, here the stereotype - representations and the stereotype of behavior - clearly diverge. A stereotype, from the point of view of "content", is a certain fragment of the picture of the world that exists in the mind.

The words stereotype, stereotypical have a negative connotation both in Russian and in English, as they are defined through the word template, which in turn is defined as “hackneyed, devoid of originality and expressiveness”. This is not quite fair in relation to the word stereotype in general, and in the context of problems of intercultural communication - in particular. For all their schematism and generality, stereotypical ideas about other peoples and other cultures prepare for a collision with a foreign culture, weaken the blow, and reduce cultural shock. "Stereotypes allow a person to form an idea of the world as a whole, to go beyond the limits of his narrow social, geographical and political world." The most popular source of stereotypical ideas about national characters are the so-called international jokes, that is, jokes built on a template plot: representatives of different nationalities, once in the same situation, react to it differently, in accordance with those features of their national character. who are attributed to them in the homeland of the anecdote. In cognitive linguistics and ethnolinguistics, the term "stereotype" refers to the content side of language and culture, that is, it is understood as a mental (mental) stereotype that correlates with the picture of the world, the linguistic picture of the world and the language stereotype are correlated as part and whole, while the language stereotype is understood as a judgment or several judgments relating to a certain object of the extralinguistic world, a subjectively determined representation of an object in which descriptive and evaluative features coexist, and which is the result of the interpretation of reality within the framework of socially developed cognitive models. But a linguistic stereotype can be considered not only a judgment or several judgments, but also any stable expression consisting of several words, for example, a stable comparison, cliché, etc.: a person of Caucasian nationality, gray as a harrier, a new Russian.

A stereotype is a person's idea of the world that is formed under the influence of the cultural environment (in other words, it is a culturally determined representation), existing both in the form of a mental image and in the form of a verbal shell, a stereotype is the process and result of communication (behavior) according to certain semiotic models . A stereotype (as a generic concept) includes a standard, which is a non-linguistic reality, and a norm that exists at the linguistic level. Stereotypes can be both characteristics of another people, and everything related to the ideas of one nation about the culture of another nation as a whole: general concepts, norms of speech communication, behavior, categories, mental analogies, prejudices, superstitions, moral and etiquette norms, traditions , customs, etc.

The concept is close to the mental world of a person, therefore, to culture and history, therefore it has a specific character. “Concepts represent a collective heritage in the minds of the people, their spiritual culture, the culture of the spiritual life of the people. It is the collective consciousness that is the keeper of constants, that is, concepts that exist constantly or for a very long time.

The cognitive status of the concept is currently reduced to its function of being a carrier and at the same time a means of conveying meaning, to the ability to "store knowledge about the world, helping to process subjective experience by subsuming information under certain categories and classes developed by society." This property brings the concept closer to such forms of reflection of meaning as a sign, image, archetype, gestalt, with all the obvious difference between these categories, which the concept can contain and in which it can be realized at the same time. The main thing in the concept is the multidimensionality and discrete integrity of meaning, which nevertheless exists in a continuous cultural and historical space and therefore predisposes to cultural translation from one subject area to another, which allows us to call the concept the main method of cultural translation. The concept, therefore, is a means of overcoming the discrete nature of ideas about reality and an ontologized complex of these ideas. It is he who is the means that makes possible the "thickening" of the field of culture. The analysis of numerous observations of researchers allows us to conclude that the concept has the following basic characteristics.

The concept is non-discursive in the sense of discourse. Discourse is a term denoting the type of Western European intellectual strategy of the rational-classical series. Hence, discursive - rational, conceptual, logical, mediated, formalized (as opposed to sensual, contemplative, intuitive, direct), differs from the concept of "disc?rs" - a term denoting a certain linguistic phenomenon.

The concept is non-discursive in the sense that it is non-linear: in this sense, the relations of concepts are not textual (sequential) relations, but hypertextual ones, based not on temporal deployment, but on the principles of roll call, reference.

Concepts are hierarchical, their systemic relations form an "image of the world", a "picture of the world". Perhaps the most successful terms expressing the systemic connections of concepts both as cognitive structures and as linguistic incarnations are the terms “linguistic-rhetorical picture of the world” and “linguistic image of the world”, since it is argued that “the system and structure of the linguistic-rhetorical picture of the world is formed by cultural concepts”.

The infinity of the concept is determined by its being as a cultural phenomenon: it constantly exists, moving from the center to the periphery and from the periphery to the center, its content is also unlimited.

The eventfulness of the concept is determined by its function in the human mind, its participation in the thought process. In order for the concept to take root as a heuristic category, it is necessary to separate the systemic, linguistic concept and its speech, contextual incarnations.

The concept and speech, contextual embodiments are in a relationship similar to the relationship of phoneme and sound, morpheme and morph. The language concept is abstract, non-material, while speech, contextual incarnations are material and concrete. Through speech, contextual incarnations, the existence of the concept is realized.

The concept can be considered as a combination of its "external", categorical reference and internal, semantic structure, which has a strict logical organization. The concept is based on the original, prototypical model of the main meaning of the word (ie, the invariant of all meanings of the word). In this regard, we can talk about the central and peripheral zones of the concept. Moreover, the latter is capable of divergence, i.e., it causes the removal of new derived values from the central one.

CONCLUSION

After analyzing the theoretical aspects of the study of the picture of the world, we came to the conclusion that modern linguistics of the 21st century, having become a widely integrated and multifaceted science, has included the problems of psychology and ethnology of speech, culturological and linguo-philosophical in the field of its recent research. Cognitive linguistics, which has received wide recognition and distribution in modern foreign and domestic science, in the sphere of its interests distinguishes such concepts as "image of the world", "image of consciousness", "linguistic consciousness", "picture of the world", "language picture of the world" and others

The linguistic picture of the world reflects the everyday-empirical, cultural or historical experience of a certain linguistic community. It should be noted that researchers approach the consideration of the national and cultural specificity of certain aspects or fragments of the world picture from different positions: some take it as the source language, analyze the established facts of interlingual similarity or divergence through the prism of linguistic systemicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the source is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguocultural community, and the image of the world is in the center of attention. The picture of the world is the central concept of the concept of man, expresses the specifics of his existence. The picture of the world forms the type of a person's attitude to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms of human behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life.

Based on the foregoing, we can say that the language acts as a mirror of national culture, its custodian. Linguistic units, primarily words, fix the content, which in one way or another goes back to the living conditions of the people - the native speaker. In the English languages we are analyzing, as in any other, the so-called national-cultural semantics of the language is important and interesting, i.e. those linguistic meanings that reflect, fix and transmit from generation to generation the features of nature, the nature of the economy and social structure of the country, its folklore, fiction, art, science, as well as the features of life, customs and history of the people.

It can be argued that the national-cultural semantics of the language is a product of history, which also includes the past of culture. And the richer the history of the people, the brighter and more meaningful the units of the language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1.Apresyan Yu.D. Selected works, volume I Lexical semantics - M., 1995.

2.Brutyan G. A. Language and picture of the world // Philos. science. 1983. No. 1.

.Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Language and culture: Linguistic and regional studies in the teaching of the Russian language. - M., 1983.

.Guseva E. Maugham and his heroes //Questions of Literature. - 1976. - No. 3. - S. 69-78.

.Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics in the 19th and 20th centuries in essays and extracts. - M., 1970. - Part 1.

.Kolshansky G.V. An objective picture of the world in cognition and language. - M.: Nauka, 1990.

.Krasnykh V.V. Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguoculturology: a course of lectures. - M.: ITDGK "Gnosis", 2002. - 284 p.

.Frumkina, R.M., Psycholinguistics: Proc. for stud. higher textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2001. - p.189-206

.Pavilenis R.I. The Problem of Meaning: A Modern Logical-Functional Analysis of Language. - M.: Progress, 2001.

.Pavilenis R.I. Understanding speech and philosophy of language // New in foreign linguistics. - Issue. XVII. - M.: Progress, 2.

.Pishchalnikova V.A. The problem of the meaning of a literary text. - Novosibirsk, 1992.

.The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world. - M.: Nauka, 1988.

.Suleimenova E.D. The concept of meaning in modern linguistics. - Alma-Ata, 1989.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

Mosunov Evgeny Leonidovich. Language and picture of the world: dissertation... Candidate of Philosophical Sciences: 09.00.01 / Mosunov Evgeniy Leonidovich; [Place of protection: Magnitog. state un-t].- Magnitogorsk, 2007.- 158 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 07-9/859

Introduction

CHAPTER I The picture of the world and its types 10

1.1 The concept of a picture of the world 10

1.2 Typology of pictures of the world 30

CHAPTER II. The role of language in the formation and functioning of the karina of the world 67

2.1 Linguistic picture of the world and its role in the formation of the picture of the world as a whole 67

2.2 Language specificity of different pictures of the world 109

Conclusion 144

List of references 146

Introduction to work

Relevance of the topic. Started in the middle of the 20th century. scientific and technological revolution, the transition of developed countries to the stage of the so-called post-industrial society, the formation of a global communication space that affects all aspects of society, with renewed vigor raised the question of the active role of language, its attitude to the increasingly complex reality that modern science should reflect .

The emergence of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, relativistic cosmology, quantum chemistry, the synthetic theory of evolution, molecular genetics, the disclosure of the code of heredity and the decoding of the human genome, the emergence of information theory, cybernetics and synergetics, new sections of mathematics (especially projective geometry and topology), the progress of computer technology and information technology, due to the transition to a post-industrial society, are largely due to the development of natural and artificial languages. This circumstance poses with renewed vigor the problem of the relationship of language to the outside world, the active role of language in discursive and figurative thinking.

Due to its significance, the problem of the relationship between language and the picture of the world, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, has been touched upon by many philosophers from the time of Antiquity to the present day. It is no coincidence that in the 20th century arise philosophical teachings, putting the problem of language at the center of philosophical research - various schools of neopositivism, hermeneutics, existentialism, postmodernism, etc.

The theory of the language picture of the world in modern science is at the stage of reflection and active development. There are two main directions in the study of this issue: philosophical, coming from G. Hegel (G.A. Brutyan, R. Pavilenis) and linguistic (Yu.N. Karaulov, G.V. Kolshansky, N.G. Komlev, E S. Kubryakova, V. I. Postovalova, G. V. Suleimanova, E. A. Kogai and others).

The relationship between language and worldview is one of the most important philosophical problems. Since a person receives the most important knowledge about the world and about himself on the basis of discursive thinking, the role of language as the most important means of cognition, the ability of linguistic thinking to reflect the actual objective and subjective reality is one of the "eternal" problems of ontology and epistemology, philosophical thought in general, and therefore it relevant for each, including the modern, stage of human development.

The degree of development of the topic. For centuries, language has been considered as a necessary accessory and condition for cognition, however, among the disparate postulates, to this day there is no holistic analysis of the place of language in the picture of the world. Often, language turned out to be a “transparent” phenomenon, automatically serving to reflect the world or to veil it.

The development of science under the influence of the values of the emerging industrial civilization contributed to the strengthening of the realistic intellectual paradigm, including in philosophy. The "pioneers of the new science" are beginning to think about the role of linguistic means in cognition. This is reflected in the idea perfect language"As an" assistant "in the knowledge of reality (R. Descartes, G. Leibniz).

The philosophy of I. Kant, which called into question the cognitive capabilities of a limited person in the face of an infinitely diverse and inexhaustible world (causing amazement on the verge of horror), in a certain sense became a step backwards compared with the idea of the omnipotence of the human mind that dominated the Enlightenment. The founder of German classical philosophy did not continue the development of the "perfect language" line, begun by Descartes and Leibniz. But by his silence (“non-creation” of yet another criticism – the “Critique of Language”) Kant created a precedent in the form of a problematic situation, which brought close to questions about the need to criticize language and create a special language of philosophy, other than the language of science.

G. Hegel pointed out the way to real objectivity, solved the problem of the finite-infinite in an abstract form. Hegel is interested in language as an external form, the direct being of thinking, through the alienated and transformed forms of which another reality is seen - the absolute idea. The essence of man, his ability to judge the essence of the world, its infinity and to objectify the results of his judgments in a linguistic form, ultimately, is a manifestation of the essence of the World Mind. Language is one of the most subtle direct manifestations of an objective idea at the stage of the subjective spirit, its transformed material form. But how does language relate to the reality represented in language? This Hegel, by virtue of the nature of his conception, does not consider.

The concept of the language picture of the world goes back to the ideas of W. Von Humboldt and neo-Humboldtians (L. Weisgerber and others) about the internal form of the language, on the one hand, and to the ideas of American ethnolinguistics, in particular, the so-called hypothesis of linguistic relativity by E. Sapir, B. Whorf , with another.

The doctrine of W. von Humboldt about the internal form of languages was transformed within the framework of neo-Humboldtianism into the theory of the language picture of the world. L. Weisgerber was a follower and supporter of the ideas of W. von Humboldt. L. Weisgerber began to develop the concept of a linguistic picture of the world in the early 30s of the 20th century. The scientific evolution of L. Weisgerber in relation to the concept of the language picture of the world went in the direction from pointing to its objectively universal basis to emphasizing its subjective-national nature. In addressing the issue of the relationship between science and language, L. Weisgerber did not follow the path of E. Cassirer. E. Cassirer recognized the power of language over scientific consciousness. L. Weisgerber's position turned out to be closer to that taken by B. Whorf in resolving this issue, although the German scientist was not as straightforward here as the American one. B. Whorf derived the scientific picture directly from the linguistic one, which inevitably led to their identification. L. Weisgerber allowed partial subordination, and only where the scientific picture of the world lags behind the linguistic one.

Modern studies of the linguistic picture of the world are carried out in two directions. On the one hand, based on a systemic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a particular language, a complete system of representations reflected in a given language is reconstructed, regardless of whether it is specific to a given language or universal (Yu. D. Apresyan, N. D. Arutyunova, T. V. Bulygin, V. A. Maslov). On the other hand, separate language-specific (linguo-specific) concepts are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they give a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages. . Such studies can be found in the works of A. Vezhbitskaya, A. Zaliznyak, I. B. Levontina, M. V. Pimenova, A. D. Shmelev, E. S. Yakovleva.

The problem of the typology of spatio-temporal relations in the language and the linguistic picture of the world is the subject of the works of S. S. Averintsev, N. D. Arutyunova, M. M. Bakhtin, A. Ya. Gurevich, G.A. Brutyan, V.V. Zhdanova, G.E. Kreidlin, Yu. M. Lotman, E. M. Meletinsky, M. F. Muryanov, N. A. Potaenko, N. I. Tolstoy, S. M. Tolstoy, V. N. Toporov, N. N. Trubnikova, B. Whorf, B. A. Uspensky, E. S. Yakovleva. The approach of the authors reveals time and space in the language not as some kind of physical and geometric prototype. They note the fact that native speakers conceive of space as heterogeneous, it is not a simple receptacle of objects, but animated by human presence.

Target of this work: to analyze the role of language in the formation, development and functioning of the picture of the world.

Realization of this goal involves setting and solving the following tasks:

1. Analyze the concept and functions of the picture of the world and explore the functions of this phenomenon.

2. To characterize various pictures of the world and develop their typology.

3. Reveal the place and role of language in the picture of the world, as well as its specification in the mythological, religious and scientific picture of the world.

Object of study. Language as a carrier of knowledge.

Subject of study. The role of language in the formation and development of the picture of the world.

Methodological basis of the study. As a methodological basis of the study, the following were used: the dialectical method, the method of phenomenological reduction, the historical and logical methods, the system-cultural method, the method of classification and the method of comparative analysis.

work hypothesis. The main hypothesis of our work is that within the language itself there are means of forming a picture of the world. This determines the active role of language in the formation, development and change of pictures of the world.

Scientific novelty

The coincidence of functions in all types of pictures of the world and the difference in the ways of their manifestation are substantiated;

It is proved that language is not only a form of expression of the picture of the world, but also represents the world in the mind of the subject;

The grounds for the relative nature of the language picture of the world are revealed.

Theoretical significance of the study. The results of the study may be useful for the further development of epistemology in the context of the philosophical problems of language.

The practical significance of the study. The provisions of the dissertation can serve as material when reading basic course philosophy, as well as during the development of relevant special courses in the field of the theory of knowledge.

Approbation of work. The research materials were reported and discussed at postgraduate seminars of the Department of Philosophy of Magnitogorsk State University, as well as at interuniversity scientific conferences held on the basis of Magnitogorsk State University (2007). Based on the research materials, three articles have been published. The dissertation research was discussed and recommended for defense at a meeting of the Philosophy Department of Magnitogorsk State University.

Dissertation structure. The work includes 2 chapters, each consisting of two paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

The concept of a picture of the world

The phrase "picture of the world" is quite firmly included in the modern Russian philosophical and scientific vocabulary. Its use has become habitual and, perhaps, even worn out. On the one hand, this testifies to the deep understanding of the research community about the nature of their work, its boundaries and possibilities, claims and prospects. On the other hand, if philosophy makes the "picture of the world" an object of reflection, then one cannot do without critical pathos. The task of any criticism, as you know, is to question the legitimacy of using such seemingly familiar ideas. The method of criticism has long been known: to turn to the explication of the initial impulse that brought to life the formation of the very idea of the picturesqueness of the world. And if we find that this impulse has not died out and still retains its productivity, then we will be obliged to recognize the functionality of the entire terminology associated with it and conditioned by it. Moreover, the statement of its safety will allow us to clarify and clarify this functionality.

The term “picture of the world” appeared at the beginning of the 20th century in the works of G. Hertz on physics (1914) in relation to the physical picture of the world, which he interprets as “a set of internal images of external objects, from which information can be obtained logically regarding the behavior of these objects. Internal images, or symbols, of external objects created by researchers must be such that the logically necessary consequences of these representations, in turn, were images of the naturally necessary consequences of the displayed objects.

The term "picture of the world" was widely used by M. Planck, who called one of his works that way. M. Planck understood the physical picture of the world as the “image of the world”, formed by physical science and reflecting the real laws of nature.

For a long time, the term "picture of the world" was mainly associated with scientific knowledge. As a rule, it was about the so-called "scientific picture of the world", which was interpreted as a structural element of the system of scientific knowledge. It suffices to refer to a kind of classic work, "Ideals and Norms of Scientific Research", namely the article by B.C. Stepin "Ideals and norms in the dynamics of scientific research". It should be noted that the vision of the world as a picture, the vision of the world as such a picture, and precisely the scientific vision, of course, were not accidental. They reflected and reflect a certain stage in the understanding of oneself and the ways of one's attitude to the world.

The main features of this relationship are beautifully summarized by M. Heidegger in the article "The Time of the Picture of the World". The German thinker points out that with the word "picture" we first of all think about the image. As an image, it does not imply a literal copy from the original, but the fixation of features that we consider the most significant, significant. And this means that we are dealing with a certain construction, the creation of which implies a certain starting point, namely the author or the viewer, and a certain degree of distance from the objects depicted in the picture. This approach implies both the loss of some closeness or intimacy of connection with the things around us, and the possibility of objectifying attitudes towards them. That is why the picture of the world always tends to be, first of all, a sphere of knowledge and scientific knowledge. At this stage, understanding the perception of the world as a picture means that we are at such a stage of understanding ourselves and the world when it becomes obvious that it is we who construct the worlds and can no longer return to the naive belief that we are dealing with things in themselves.

But Heidegger goes further, defining in more detail the boundaries and originality of the era, which he calls "the time of the picture of the world." "The world here acts as a designation of beings as a whole," he emphasizes. Secondly, it is assumed that the painted things are presented to us in their entirety. "In this" make a picture "competence, equipment, purposefulness sound" . And thirdly, as one of the contemporary authors following Heidegger notes, “the Heideggerian metaphor of the world-as-picture can be very instructively opposed to the concept of the world. ... This metaphor entails a distance between us and the world, the transformation of participation and living in observation and representation. The world becomes a picture, a representation against which we stand, leaving us outside this picture, without a place in the world. Such a world, the product of our representing activity, loses its influence on us."

If we briefly outline the Heideggerian understanding of the relationship between a person and a picture of the world, the following provisions can be distinguished: - a person depicts the world as a picture; - a person understands the world as a picture; - the world turns into a picture; - man conquers the world like a picture. Since the 60s of the last century, the problem of the picture of the world has been considered within the framework of semiotics in the study of primary modeling systems(language) and secondary modeling systems (myth, religion, folklore, poetry, prose, cinema, painting, architecture, etc.).

The concept of "picture of the world" is used very actively by representatives of various sciences: philosophy, psychology, cultural studies, epistemology, cognitive science, linguistics. Nevertheless, having firmly entered the category of "working" concepts of many sciences, to a certain extent, it still remains a metaphor, does not always receive a sufficiently clear and unambiguous interpretation among specialists of the same profile.

In various anthropological concepts, the essence of a person is revealed by opposing him to other creatures - animals, robots (ie, artificial intelligence). Man, in contrast to them, for orientation in the world needs special symbolic mediating structures - language, mythology, religion, art, science, which act as regulators of his life. "The most adequate understanding of the picture of the world seems to be the definition of it as the original global image of the world that underlies the human worldview, representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and being the result of all human spiritual activity" .

Typology of pictures of the world

We are aware that it is impossible to describe in detail and in sufficient depth the types of pictures of the world in one paragraph. The purpose of this section of the work is to highlight the most significant features and features that affect the specifics of the linguistic expression of a particular type of picture of the world.

Researchers note that the actual mythological consciousness is characteristic, first of all, of primitive man. Further forms of interaction between myth and consciousness require the use of an extended conceptual apparatus.

E. Husserl noted that, although religious and mythological motives are inherent in humanity, "living a natural life," the appearance of a mythological picture of the world means "that the world is thematized, moreover, in its practical aspect, as a totality." At the same time, the world appears for a certain group of people "in a mythologically meaningful way." The most ancient of the types of worldview accepted today is a myth, a mythological form of social consciousness.

Let us single out the following characteristics of mythological consciousness as a mental phenomenon: syncretism, participation, the principle of binary oppositions, the archetypal basis, the collective nature of the formation of judgments, the non-conventionality of proper names, the one-time nature, the “personalization” (as opposed to the depersonalization) of things, the specific organization of time and space.

Further, considering the listed properties of mythological consciousness, let us trace how they are realized in the mythologized consciousness. Note that these properties of mental processes and states are closely interconnected and interact in the course of the implementation of the cognitive, analytical and image-creating activity of human consciousness. Primitive culture is distinguished by syncretism. Many phenomena and essences of human cultural activity are in an embryonic state, in an indistinguishable unity. Ideas about the world also appear in the form of primitive syncretism. The fundamental opposition of nature and culture in archaic folklore only barely stands out against the background of their identification, conceptual indistinguishability. The universe looks in the eyes of the carrier of the primitive mythological consciousness as a single whole, there is no "I" and "non-I", subject and object, etc. Along with this, both the products of human fantasy and the fruits of myth-making are inseparable from reality and are perceived as "irrefutable facts of being." In an indistinguishable unity, there are also forms of the assimilation of reality. This property of human consciousness is associated with the fact that some researchers, relying on its cognitive function, see the germ of science in myth. It should be noted that the myth thus does not become the "cradle of science", but only emerges simultaneously with its foundations. Recognition of the syncretism of mythology as its specific feature does not allow identifying mythology either with religion, opposing mythology to art, or with art, opposing mythology to religion.

Mythological perception of the world is not cemented by the logic of rational activity. The mythological picture of the world has no basis for dismembering its constituent parts. In this picture of the world, its elements are still soldered into a figurative, syncretic, holistic view of natural phenomena and social life. The inclusion of any phenomenon, any element of this mythopoetic picture of the world was made understandable and accessible to a member of the tribal community only through rapprochement with their own feelings. There is a point of view according to which any primitive religion reflects only the weakness of man in the face of those forces that in nature interfere with his activity and pose a threat to his own existence. And therefore, natural forces as an element of the religious-mythological worldview are of interest to a person to the extent that they invade his life and determine this life and human existence itself, its subject-practical relationship to nature.

Observations of the rhythms of annually falling asleep and reviving nature, of the periodic change of annual seasons, phases of the lunar month, day and night, give rise to a cyclic rather than a linear sense of time. Its course is comprehended not as an irreversible sequence, composed of successive, unique, but interdependent events, the participants of which are the only characters of their kind (individual or collective), but as an eternally established scenario of "first events" with their cyclically reproducible consequences and contexts; this scenario is played out again and again in rites and other cultural texts.

The mythological world is characterized by a specific mythological understanding of space; it is presented not as an indicative continuum, but as a collection of individual objects that have their own names. In the intervals between them, the space seems to be interrupted, therefore, without such, from our point of view, a fundamental feature as continuity. A particular consequence of this is the "patchwork" nature of the mythological space. On the other hand, getting to a new place, the object may lose its connection with its previous state and become a different object (in some cases, this may also correspond to a name change). From this follows the characteristic ability of the mythological space to model other, direct (semantic, value, etc.) relations.

Linguistic picture of the world and its role in the formation of the picture of the world as a whole

Every person who has left childhood has the ability to speak and speaks. That is why everyone, regardless of education, carries through his whole life some, albeit naive, but deeply rooted views on speech and its connection with thinking. Since these views are closely related to speech skills that have become unconscious and automatic, they are rather difficult to change and are by no means something purely individual or chaotic - they are based on a certain system. Therefore, we have the right to call these views a system of natural logic. The fact that all people are fluent in speech, consistent with the laws of natural logic, already allows everyone to consider himself an authority in all matters related to the process of formation and transmission of thoughts. To do this, it seems to him, it is enough to turn to common sense and logic, which he, like any other person, possesses. Natural logic asserts that speech is only an external process, connected only with the communication of thoughts, but not with their formation. It is believed that speech, i.e. the use of language, only "expresses" what has already been formed in its main features without the help of language. The formation of thought is supposedly an independent process, called thinking or thought, and is in no way connected with the nature of individual specific languages. The structure of the language is only a set of generally accepted traditional rules, but the use of the language is allegedly subject not so much to them as to correct, rational, or logical, thinking. The formation of thoughts is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense of the word, but a part of the grammar of one or another language and differs among different peoples in some cases insignificantly, in others very significantly, just like the grammatical structure of the corresponding languages. We dissect nature in the direction suggested by our native language. We distinguish certain categories and types in the world of phenomena not at all because they (these categories and types) are self-evident; on the contrary, the world appears before us as a kaleidoscopic stream of impressions, which must be organized by our consciousness, and this means mainly by the language system stored in our consciousness. We dismember the world, organize it into concepts, and distribute meanings in this way and not otherwise, mainly because we are parties to the agreement that prescribes such a systematization. This agreement is valid for a certain speech community and is fixed in the system of models of our language. This agreement, of course, is not formulated in any way and by anyone and is only implied, and, nevertheless, we are parties to this agreement; we will not be able to speak at all, unless we subscribe to the systematization and classification of the material, conditioned by the said agreement.

This circumstance is extremely important for modern science, because it implies that no one is free to describe nature absolutely independently, but we are all bound to certain modes of interpretation even when we consider ourselves the most free. A person more free in this respect than others would be a linguist who is familiar with a wide variety of language systems. However, until now there were no such linguists. We are thus confronted with a new principle of relativity, which says that similar physical phenomena make it possible to create a similar picture of the universe only if the language systems are similar, or at least correlative. This startling conclusion is not so obvious if one restricts oneself to comparing only our modern European languages, and perhaps even Latin and Greek. The systems of these languages coincide in their essential features, which at first glance, it would seem, testifies in favor of natural logic. But this coincidence exists only because all these languages are Indo-European dialects, built basically on the same plan and developed historically from what was once a single speech community; The similarity of the languages mentioned is explained, moreover, by the fact that all of them participated in the creation of a common culture for a long time, and also by the fact that this culture in many respects, and especially in the intellectual field, developed under the strong influence of Latin and Greek. Thus, this case does not contradict the principle of linguistic relativity formulated at the end of the previous paragraph. The consequence of this is the similarity in the description of the world by modern scientists. However, it must be emphasized that the concepts of "all modern scientists who speak "Indo-European languages" and "all scientists" do not coincide. The fact that modern Chinese or Turkish scientists describe the world like European scientists only means that they adopted the entire Western system of thought, but not at all that they developed this system on their own, from their own observation posts.

The divergences in the analysis of nature become more evident when we compare our own languages with Semitic, Chinese, Tibetan or African languages. And if we draw on the languages of the indigenous population of America, where speech communities have developed independently of each other and of the Old World for many millennia, then the fact that languages divide the world in different ways becomes completely irrefutable. The relativity of all conceptual systems, including ours, and their dependence on language are revealed. That the American Indians, speaking only their native languages, never acted as scientists or explorers is irrelevant. Ignoring the evidence of the originality of the human mind that their languages provide is like expecting botanists to exhaustively describe the plant world, knowing that they have studied only food plants and hothouse roses.

The correlation of language, thinking and reality can be considered in the most general form or can be reduced to the study of the correlation of only the most important units and moments of these areas or even individual parts of these areas: 1) a word, a name, a linguistic sign, a sentence, syntax, a grammatical category, etc. .d., 2) thoughts, concepts, logical judgments, knowledge, logic, logical categories, etc. and 3) things, properties, relationships, etc. - which can be considered in separate linguo-philosophical concepts as the "originals" of being and the "primary elements" of reality. So, in the philosophy of language of anthropocosmic and theoanthropocosmic orientation, not only culture, but the whole universe (“cosmos”) can act as a name and a word. “In the metaphysical aspect, nothing prevents us from considering the cosmic universe as a word. Everywhere the essential relations and typical forms in the structure of the word are the same,” notes G.G. Shpet in his “Aesthetic Fragments”. The idea to present the world as a name that imitates the Name of God is realized in the onomatodoxy (name worship) of A.F. Losev.

Linguistic specificity of different pictures of the world

According to the hypothesis of the Russian scientist B. Porshnev, the mythological language is the proto-language, the "original" language of mankind. Porshnev considered the "original language" as a rather extensive collection of "things" - totems, fetishes, all magical items. Things became the designation of sounds before sounds became the designations of things. The original "words" are words without subject meanings; language denotes commands, actions, impulses and inhibitions - "suggestive signals". It is the language of emotions, not images. All these word-objects serve one thing - they should help a person get out of the “ultraparadoxical” phase. This phase is characterized as "diplastia". Diplastia is a phenomenon of identification of two elements inherent only to man, which absolutely exclude one another. In animals, the ultraparadoxical phase is a disaster. After the initial breakdown, the two elements are again divorced. In humans, pathology becomes the norm, forms the basis of a new system of behavior. The “half-erased trace” of diplasty is a metaphor, a spell. The new sign system - human language - is used at first not as a sign system, but as a "sign" one. For a long time it was impossible to determine where the sign is and where the signified is. Bringing together, identifying the incompatible, the parent language uses not only the mechanism of inhibition (“it is impossible”), but also of disinhibition (“everything is possible”). Later, diplasia stratifies, acquires asymmetry, intentionality: a unidirectional “signifier-signified” system is formed. The feeling of freedom is lost, the world acquires clearer contours, fixed with the help of language in its traditional existence.

The convergence of heterogeneous things is based on mimesis, imitation as a way of solving life's tasks, tasks of survival, life according to a different plan, a desperate effort to survive with the help of ritual actions symbolizing new life. In the depiction of early Marx, the titanic image of a person as a living, acting according to the measure of any kind, but applying his own measure of a universal, creative being to everything, and the image of a being driven into a corner, seeing an insurmountable “wall” in front of him (Dostoevsky’s expression), are similar in essence , although they differ in tone. The superhuman insight, creative breadth, God-like "disinterest" of Marx's man is an individualized abstraction, "idealization". A different image arises behind it - the image of an ancestral man, whose awakening consciousness makes him, through trial and error, try to "live" according to the standards of species that are dissimilar to him, but more "successful". Where there is an anthropological extravaganza in Marxism, modern researchers see a dangerous swinging of the symbolic pendulum, the pendulum of the proto-language, between prohibition and its violation, between inhibition and dis-inhibition. The destruction of the biological basis of survival in a standard situation makes the pre-human do the impossible - to start living according to someone else's plan, the plan of "successful" individuals of another species. Of course, this is not done by a real transformation into a strong, fast creature that easily avoids dangers, but by a symbolic reproduction of individual external, imitable features of a wolf, lion, bear, etc. There, the process of life would have to take place through the death of one species and the emergence and spread of another, adapted to new conditions by virtue of its biological organization, but here it is carried out as a kind of “transformation”: temporarily a person receives the right to be everything, the right to symbolic freedom. In the culturological parable of W. Golding “Clonk-Clonk”, an ancient man constantly “renames” himself, becoming either the “Attacking Elephant”, then the “Chimpanzee”, then the “Singing Wind”, then the “Water Paw”, then the “Wounded Leopard”. The world is full of names that a person receives "metonymically" - somehow touching either an elephant, or a leopard, or becoming like a chimpanzee.

The concepts of "imitation" and "identification" are different. But in this case, the result of this imitative by design (but in essence - sign-symbolic) activity is identified with the object of imitation: imitation in the dance of individual features of the appearance, behavior of the animal is the basis of identification with this animal. Therefore, we can talk about "imitation-identification" as a single process of the functioning of symbolic thinking in the individual life process.

The idea of imitation also attracted the attention of M. Foucault. Exploring the evolution of the existence of language in European culture, Foucault, using the example of the episteme of the 16th century. considers the same problem of the initial existence of language, which is so significant for understanding the formation of life in its human characteristics. In fact, Foucault singles out the main semantic elements of "life" as a special world relation. First, the language exists in its original being, participation in the world, the primary word - as a "sign of the world", as a "stigma on things". Foucault's concept, which is directly related to the culture of the 16th century, helps to reveal the features of that special knowledge that makes up the specifics of life as a state of consciousness in general: "In a sense, this layer of language is the only and absolute" . The basis of knowledge was originally based on the category of similarity, similarity, one might say, imitation of things to each other. In this sense, the language reveals the very program of "survival" through "pure" similarity, imitation, freed from clarifying the causes and degrees of this similarity, from turning to other motives.

Foucault draws a logical scheme of myth, considering the original function of language as a way of direct communication between a person and the world, things as likeness to it. It is enough to "integrate" into the already outlined chain of similarities, sympathies with the help of language as the visible side of things, to find intermediate links between the main life oppositions, to find the right "place" where things with opposite properties converge, and the mystery of life is solved, found philosopher's Stone, a person becomes the ruler of three kingdoms - mineral, vegetable, animal, real immortality is achieved. But Foucault still wrote about language as a means of imitating nature in its integrity, infinity, and completeness already in the era of "worldviews", when the original life attitude took the form of magical actions, alchemical practice, various classifications, and thus received a special cultural and historical form. . Linguistic formalization, ideological fullness, characteristic of its time, make it difficult to detect a timeless, universal structure in such a relationship between a person and the world.

The moment essential for the reconstruction of the initial life situation can be found in the original concept of anthropogenesis, which is put forward by A.M. Pubis. There is a pre-communication layer of language, an individual language, a “silent” language, the language of communication between a person and things. The first word is the creation and maintenance of redundant semantic fields in objects. The semantic field is the field of myth, it is initially chaotic and is determined by the variety of human interactions with the objective world, and only later it is ordered and turns into a “story”. In the early stages of history, culture has a “one-time” character: the appearance of chipped marks on stones indicates some experience in manipulating things, about “sign things” that only reveal the semantic redundancy of a thing, but hide it from an outsider: this is a pre-social culture, “ pure authorship, which does not yet know how to speak.

Each language reflects a certain way of perceiving and arranging the world, or its linguistic picture. The totality of ideas about the world, contained in the meaning of various words and expressions of a language, is formed into a kind of unified system of views and attitudes, which is shared to some extent by all speakers of a given language.

Language picture of the world- reflected in the categories (partly in the forms) of the language of the representation of a given language community about the structure, elements and processes of reality. A holistic image of the language of everything that exists in a person, around him. The image of a person, his inner world, the surrounding world and nature, carried out by means of language nomination.

The ideas that form the picture of the world are implicitly included in the meanings of words, so that a person takes them on faith without hesitation. Using words containing implicit meanings, a person, without noticing it, accepts the view of the world contained in them. On the contrary, the semantic components that are included in the meaning of words and expressions in the form of direct statements can be a subject of dispute between different native speakers and, therefore, are not included in the general fund of ideas that form the linguistic picture of the world.

When comparing different linguistic pictures of the world, their similarities and differences are revealed, and sometimes very significant ones. The most important ideas for a given language are repeated in the meaning of many language units and are therefore key to understanding one or another picture of the world.

Differences between language pictures reveal themselves, first of all, in linguo-specific words that are not translated into other languages and contain concepts specific to a given language. The study of linguo-specific words in their relationship and in an intercultural perspective allows us to talk about the restoration of quite significant fragments of the linguistic picture of the world and the ideas that determine it.

The concept of a linguistic picture of the world goes back to the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt and neo-Humboldtians (Weisgerber and others) about the internal form of language, on the one hand, and to the ideas of American ethnolinguistics, in particular the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, on the other. Academician Yu.D. Apresyan.

Recently, the issues of language learning, the formation of language pictures of the world, thinking and reasoning, as well as other activities of natural intelligence within the framework of computer science and especially within the framework of the theory of artificial intelligence, have intensified.

Today, the need for a computer to understand natural language has become clear, but achieving this is fraught with a number of difficulties. The complexity of understanding natural languages when solving artificial intelligence problems is due to many reasons. In particular, it turned out that a large amount of knowledge, abilities and experience are needed to use the language. Successful understanding of language requires an understanding of the natural world, knowledge of human psychology and social aspects. This requires the implementation of logical reasoning and the interpretation of metaphors. Due to the complexity and versatility of human language, the problem of studying the representation of knowledge comes to the fore. Attempts at such studies were only partially successful. On the basis of knowledge, programs have been successfully developed that understand natural language in certain subject areas. The possibility of creating systems that solve the problem of natural language understanding is still a subject of controversy.

It is important that various sciences and scientific areas deal with the problems of studying the language and the linguistic picture of the world: linguistics, ethnography, artificial intelligence, philosophy, ethics, cultural studies, logic, pedagogy, sociology, psychology and others. The achievements of each of them and in related areas affect the development of all areas and create conditions for a comprehensive study of the subject area.

It should be noted that today this subject area is far from being fully studied, it requires further careful consideration and systematization. The available knowledge is not enough to draw up a complete picture of the phenomenon under study.

The main objective of this work is to study the historical and philosophical aspects of the development of the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" in the framework of various disciplines and areas, as well as designate the scope of practical application of the accumulated knowledge.

Section 1. Theoretical foundations of the concept of "language picture of the world"

Weisgerber's theory of the language picture of the world

The theory of the language picture of the world (Weltbild der Sprache) was built by the German scientist Leo Weisgerber on the basis of the teachings of Wilhelm Humboldt "On the inner form of language". Weisgerber began to develop the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" in the early 1930s. L. Weisgerber wrote in the article “The connection between the native language, thinking and action” (Die Zusammenhange zwischen Muttersprache, Denken und Handeln) (1930) that the vocabulary of a particular language includes a set of conceptual mental means that the language community has. As each native speaker studies this dictionary, all members of the language community master these mental means, so it can be concluded that the native language contains in its concepts a certain picture of the world and transmits it to members of the language community.

L. Weisgerber used the term “picture of the world” before (for example, he used it in his monograph “Mother tongue and the formation of the spirit”, published in 1929), but in it he did not yet refer this term to language as such. He pointed out that the "picture of the world" plays only a stimulating role of language in relation to the formation of a single picture of the world in a person. The scientist wrote: “It (language) allows a person to combine all experience into a single picture of the world and makes him forget about how earlier, before he learned the language, he perceived the world around him.”

In the aforementioned 1930 article, L. Weisgerber directly inscribes the picture of the world into the language itself, making it its fundamental accessory. But in it, the picture of the world is still being introduced only into the vocabulary of the language, and not into the language as a whole. In the article "Language" (Sprache), published in 1931, he takes a new step in connecting the concept of a picture of the world with language, namely, he enters it into the content side of the language as a whole. “In the language of a particular community,” he writes, “spiritual content lives and influences, a treasure of knowledge, which is rightly called the picture of the world of a particular language.”

It is important to emphasize that in the 1930s L. Weisgerber did not place excessive emphasis on the ideological side of the linguistic picture of the world. Only with time does he leave aside the objective basis of the linguistic picture of the world and begin to emphasize its ideological, subjective-national, "idio-ethnic" side, stemming from the fact that each language has a special point of view on the world - the point of view from which he looked at him the people who created this language. The world itself, according to the scientist, will always remain in the shadow of this point of view. Since the 1950s, the scientist has been identifying in the language picture of the world its “energetic” (from W. Humboldt’s “energy”) aspect associated with the impact of the picture of the world contained in a particular language on the cognitive and practical activities of its speakers, while in the 1930s, he emphasized the "ergonic" (from W. Humboldt's "ergon") aspect of the language picture of the world.

The scientific evolution of L. Weisgerber in relation to the concept of the language picture of the world went in the direction from pointing to its objective-universal basis to emphasizing its subjective-national nature. That is why, starting from the 1950s, he began to place more and more emphasis on the "energetic" definition of the linguistic picture of the world, since the impact of language on a person, from his point of view, primarily stems from the originality of his linguistic picture of the world, and not from its universal components.

The more L. Weisgereber left in the shadow the objective factor in the formation of the language picture of the world - the outside world, the more he turned the language into a kind of "creator of the world". A peculiar inversion of the relationship between the outside world and language can be found in Weisgerber's solution of the question of the relationship between scientific and linguistic pictures of the world. Here he did not follow the path of Ernst Cassirer, who in his "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms" found a completely balanced position in resolving this issue, believing that the business of a scientist, among other things, is to free himself from the bonds of language, with the help of which he comprehends the object of his research to come to it as such. At the same time, he put language on the same level as myth. “... philosophical knowledge is forced, first of all, to free itself from the bonds of language and myth,” wrote E. Cassirer, “it must repel these witnesses of human imperfection before it can soar into the pure ether of thought.”

Cassirer recognized the power of language over scientific consciousness. But he recognized it only at the initial stage of the activity of a scientist, aimed at the study of a particular subject. He wrote: "... the starting point of any theoretical knowledge is the world already formed by the language: both the natural scientist, and the historian, and even the philosopher see objects at first as the language presents them to them." Here it is important to emphasize the word "at first" and point out that the scientist should strive, according to E. Cassirer, to overcome the power of language over his research consciousness. Explaining the idea of the unacceptability in science of many ideas about the world, enshrined in language, E. Cassirer wrote: visions of the world, I cannot and should not correspond.

Regarding the solution of the issue of the relationship between science and language, L. Weisgerber formed personal opinion. To facilitate understanding of the question of the influence of language on science, Weisgerber needed to bring them closer, to show that the difference between them is not as great as it might seem at first glance to an inexperienced person. He tried to dispel the "prejudice" that science is free from idioethnism and that it is dominated by the universal. He wrote about scientific knowledge: “It is universal in the sense that it is independent of spatial and temporal accidents and that its results are adequate to the structure of the human spirit in the sense that all people are forced to recognize a certain course of scientific thinking ... This is the goal towards which science strives , but which has not been reached anywhere. According to the researcher, there is something that does not allow science to be universal. "The relation of science to premises and communities," Weisgerber wrote, "without a universal human dimension." It is this connection that "entails the corresponding restrictions on truth."

According to Weisgerber's reasoning, it can be concluded that if people were deprived of their ethnic and individual characteristics, then they would be able to get to the truth, and since they do not have this opportunity, they will never be able to achieve complete universality. It would seem that from these reflections, the scientist should have concluded that people (and scientists in particular) should at least strive to free their consciousness from the subjectivism that stems from their individuality. E. Cassirer came to this conclusion in resolving the issue of the relationship between science and language. But L. Weisgerber thought differently.

From his point of view, attempts by people (including scientists) to free themselves from the power of their native language are always doomed to failure. This was the main postulate of his philosophy of language. He did not recognize the objective (non-linguistic, non-verbal) way of cognition. From these premises followed his solution of the question of the relationship between science and language: since science is not able to free itself from the influence of language, then it is necessary to turn language into its ally.

In the question of the relationship between scientific and linguistic pictures of the world, L. Weisgerber was the predecessor of B. Whorf. Like the latter, the German scientist proposed ultimately to build a scientific picture of the world based on the linguistic one. But there is also a difference between L. Weisgerber and B. Whorf. If the American scientist tried to put science in complete subordination to the language, then the German recognized this subordination only partially - only where the scientific picture of the world lags behind the linguistic one.

Weisgerber understood language as an "intermediate world" (Zwischenwelt) between man and the outside world. Under the man here we must also mean the scientist, who, like everyone else, is not able to free himself from the bonds imposed on him by the picture of the world contained in his native language in his research activity. He is doomed to see the world through the prism of his native language. He is doomed to explore the subject in the directions that his native language predicts for him.

However, Weisgerber allowed for the relative freedom of human consciousness from the linguistic picture of the world, but within its own framework. In other words, in principle, no one can get rid of the linguistic picture of the world that exists in the mind, but within the framework of this picture itself, we can afford some movements that make us individuals. But the originality of the personality, which L. Weisgerber speaks about here, is always limited by the national specificity of his linguistic picture of the world. That is why a Frenchman will always see the world from his language window, a Russian from his own, a Chinese from his own, and so on. That is why, like E. Sapir, L. Weisgerber could say that people who speak different languages live in different worlds, and not at all in the same world, on which only different language labels are hung.

L. Weisgerber resorted to many lexical examples to show the ideological dependence of a person on his native language. We can cite the following, in which Weisgerber answers the question of how the world of stars is formed in our minds. Objectively, from his point of view, no constellations exist, since what we call constellations actually look like clusters of stars only from our, earthly, point of view. In reality, the stars that we arbitrarily combine into one “constellation” can be located at great distances from each other. Nevertheless, the stellar world in our minds looks like a system of constellations. Worldview - the creative power of the language in this case lies in those names that are available in our native language for the corresponding constellations. It is they who force us from childhood to create our own world of stars in the minds, because, assimilating these names from adults, we are forced to adopt the ideas associated with them. But, since in different languages there is an unequal number of stellar names, then, therefore, their carriers will have different stellar worlds. So, in Greek, L. Weisgerber found only 48 names, and in Chinese - 283. That is why the Greek has his own starry world, and the Chinese has his own.

The situation is similar, according to Weisgerber, with all other classifications that exist in the picture of the world of a particular language. It is they who ultimately give a person the picture of the world that is contained in his native language.

Recognizing the high authority of Leo Weisgerber as the author of a very deep and finely developed concept of the language picture of the world, modern scientists, however, cannot accept the idea of its author that the power of the native language over a person is absolutely insurmountable. Without denying the influence of the linguistic picture of the world on human thinking, it is necessary, at the same time, to point out the possibility of a non-linguistic (non-verbal) way of cognition, in which not the language, but the object itself sets one or another direction of thought. Thus, the linguistic picture of the world ultimately affects the worldview, but it is formed by the world itself, on the one hand, and a conceptual point of view on it, independent of language, on the other.

Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity (from Latin lingua - language) is an assumption put forward in the works of E. Sapir and B. Whorf, according to which the processes of perception and thinking are due to ethno-specific features of the structure of the language. These or other language constructions and vocabulary links, acting on an unconscious level, lead to the creation of a typical picture of the world, which is inherent in the speakers of a given language and which acts as a scheme for cataloging individual experience. The grammatical structure of the language imposes a way to highlight the elements of the surrounding reality.

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity (also known as the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis"), the thesis according to which the systems of concepts existing in the mind of a person, and, consequently, the essential features of his thinking, are determined by the specific language that this person is a carrier of.

Linguistic relativity is the central concept of ethnolinguistics, a field of linguistics that studies language in its relationship with culture. The doctrine of relativity ("relativism") in linguistics arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. in line with relativism as a general methodological principle, which has found its expression both in natural and in humanities, in which this principle was transformed into the assumption that the sensory perception of reality is determined by the mental representations of a person. Mental representations, in turn, can change under the influence of linguistic and cultural systems. Since the historical experience of their speakers is concentrated in a particular language and, more broadly, in a particular culture, the mental representations of speakers of different languages may not coincide.

As the simplest examples of how languages conceptualize extralinguistic reality in different ways, fragments of lexical systems such as names of body parts, terms of kinship, or color naming systems are often cited. For example, in Russian, two different words depending on the gender of the relative - brother and sister. In Japanese, this fragment of the system of kinship terms suggests a more fractional division: it is obligatory to indicate the relative age of a relative; in other words, instead of two words meaning "brother" and "sister", four are used: ani "big brother", ane "big sister", otooto "little brother", imooto "little sister". In addition, there is also a word in Japanese with the collective meaning kyoodai "brother or sister", "brothers and / or sisters", denoting the closest relative (relatives) of the same generation as the speaker, regardless of gender and age (similar generalized names are also found in European languages, for example, English sibling "brother or sister"). It can be said that the way of conceptualization of the world, which is used by a native speaker of Japanese, implies a more detailed conceptual classification compared to the way of conceptualization, which is given by the Russian language.

In different periods of the history of linguistics, the problems of differences in the linguistic conceptualization of the world were raised, first of all, in connection with particular practical and theoretical tasks of translation from one language to another, as well as within the framework of such a discipline as hermeneutics. The fundamental possibility of translation from one language to another, as well as an adequate interpretation of ancient written texts, is based on the assumption that there is some system of ideas that is universal for speakers of all human languages and cultures, or at least shared by speakers of that pair of languages with which and to which the transfer is made. The closer the linguistic and cultural systems are, the more likely it is to adequately convey in the target language what was included in the conceptual schemes of the original language. And vice versa, significant cultural and linguistic differences make it possible to see in which cases the choice of a linguistic expression is determined not so much by the objective properties of the extralinguistic reality they designate, but by the framework of an intralinguistic convention: it is precisely such cases that cannot or are difficult to translate and interpret. It is understandable, therefore, that relativism in linguistics received a powerful impetus in connection with the relativism that arose in the second half of the 19th century. the task of studying and describing "exotic" languages and cultures that are sharply different from European ones, primarily the languages and cultures of the American Indians.

Linguistic relativity as scientific concept originates from the works of the founders of ethnolinguistics - the American anthropologist Franz Boas, his student Edward Sapir and the last student Benjamin Whorf. In its most radical form, which entered the history of linguistics under the name of the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" and became the subject of ongoing discussions to this day, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity was formulated by Whorf, or rather, attributed to him on the basis of a number of his statements and spectacular examples contained in his articles. In fact, Whorf accompanied these statements with a number of reservations, while Sapir did not have such categorical formulations at all.

Boas' idea of the classifying and systematizing function of a language was based on a trivial, at first glance, consideration: the number of grammatical indicators in a particular language is relatively small, the number of words in a particular language is large, but also finite, the number of phenomena designated by this language is infinite. Therefore, language is used to refer to classes of phenomena, and not to each phenomenon in particular. Classification is carried out by each language in its own way. In the course of classification, the language narrows the universal conceptual space, choosing from it those components that are recognized as the most significant within a particular culture.

Born and educated in Germany, Boas was undoubtedly influenced by the linguistic views of W. von Humboldt, who believed that the language embodies the cultural representations of the community of people using this language. However, Boas did not share Humboldt's ideas about the so-called "stadiality". Unlike Humboldt, Boas believed that the differences in the "picture of the world", fixed in the language system, cannot indicate a greater or lesser development of its speakers. The linguistic relativism of Boas and his students was based on the idea of biological equality and, as a consequence, equality of linguistic and mental abilities. Numerous languages outside Europe, primarily the languages of the New World, which began to be intensively mastered by linguistics at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, turned out to be exotic in terms of vocabulary and especially grammar of European languages, however, within the framework of the Boasian tradition, this unusualness was not considered evidence of “primitiveness”. » of these languages or the «primitiveness» of the culture reflected in these languages. On the contrary, the rapidly expanding geography of linguistic research made it possible to understand the limitations of Eurocentric views on the description of language, putting new arguments into the hands of supporters of linguistic relativity.

The most important stage in the study of language as a means of systematizing cultural experience is associated with the works of E. Sapir. Sapir understood language primarily as a strictly organized system, all components of which - such as sound composition, grammar, vocabulary - are connected by rigid hierarchical relationships. The connection between the components of the system of a single language is built according to its own internal laws, as a result of which it is impossible to project the system of one language onto the system of another without distorting the meaningful relationships between the components. Understanding linguistic relativity precisely as the impossibility of establishing component-by-component correspondences between systems of different languages, Sapir introduced the term "incommensurability" (incommensurability) of languages. The language systems of individual languages not only fix the content of cultural experience in different ways, but also provide their speakers with different ways of understanding reality and ways of perceiving it.

The intralinguistic capabilities of the system, which allow members of the linguistic community to receive, store and transmit knowledge about the world, are largely related to the inventory of formal, “technical” means and techniques that the language has - an inventory of sounds, words, grammatical structures, etc. Therefore, Sapir's interest in studying the causes and forms of linguistic diversity is understandable: for many years he was engaged in field research on Indian languages, he owns one of the first genealogical classifications of the languages of North America. Sapir also proposed principles of morphological classification of languages, innovative for his time, taking into account the degree of complexity of the word, ways of expressing grammatical categories (affix, official word etc.), admissibility of alternations and other parameters. Understanding what can and cannot be in a language as a formal system allows us to get closer to understanding language activity as a cultural phenomenon.

The most radical views on the "picture of the world of the speaker" as a result of the action of linguistic mechanisms of conceptualization were expressed by B. Whorf. It is Whorf who owns the very term "the principle of linguistic relativity", introduced by direct and intentional analogy with the principle of relativity by A. Einstein. Whorf compared the linguistic picture of the world of the American Indians (the Hopi, as well as the Shawnee, Paiute, Navajo and many others) with the linguistic picture of the world of European speakers. Against the backdrop of a striking contrast with the vision of the world enshrined in Indian languages, such as Hopi, the differences between European languages \u200b\u200bseem to be of little importance, which gave Whorf reason to combine them into the group of “Standard Average European languages” (SAE - Standard Average European).

According to Whorf, the instrument of conceptualization is not only the formal units distinguished in the text, such as individual words and grammatical indicators, but also the selectivity of language rules, i.e. how certain units can be combined with each other, which class of units is possible and which is not possible in one or another grammatical construction, etc. On this basis, Whorf proposed to distinguish between open and hidden grammatical categories: the same meaning can be expressed regularly in one language using a fixed set of grammatical indicators, i.e. be represented by an open category, and another language can be detected only indirectly, by the presence of certain prohibitions, and in this case we can talk about a hidden category. So, in English, the category of certainty/uncertainty is open and is expressed regularly by choosing a definite or indefinite article. One can consider the presence of the article and, accordingly, the presence of an open category of certainty in the language as evidence that the idea of certainty is an important element of the picture of the world for speakers of this language. However, it is wrong to assume that the meaning of definiteness cannot be expressed in a language where there are no articles. In Russian, for example, a noun in the final stressed position can be understood both as definite and indefinite: the word old man in a sentence Starik looked out of the window can denote both a well-defined old man, which has already been discussed, and some unknown old man, for the first time appearing in the field of view of the speakers. Accordingly, in the translation of this sentence into the article language, depending on the broader context, both the definite and the indefinite article are possible. However, in the initial unstressed position, the noun is understood only as a definite one: the word old man in the sentence Old man looked out of the window can only denote a specific and most likely previously mentioned old man and, accordingly, can be translated into the article language only with a definite article.

Whorf should also be considered the founder of research on the role of linguistic metaphor in the conceptualization of reality. It was Whorf who showed that the figurative meaning of a word can influence how its original meaning functions in speech. Whorf's classic example is the English phrase "empty gasoline drums". Whorf, who was trained as a chemical engineer and worked for an insurance company, noticed that people underestimate the fire hazard of empty tanks, despite the fact that they may contain flammable gasoline vapors. Whorf sees the linguistic reason for this phenomenon in the following. The English word empty (as, note, and its Russian counterpart the adjective empty) as an inscription on a tank implies the understanding of "the absence in the container of the contents for which this container is intended", however, this word also has a figurative meaning: "meaning nothing, not having consequences" (cf. Russian expressions empty chores, empty promises). It is this figurative meaning of the word that leads to the fact that the situation with empty tanks is “modeled” in the minds of the carriers as safe.

In modern linguistics, it is the study of metaphorical meanings in everyday language that has turned out to be one of those areas that inherit the "Whorfian" traditions. Studies conducted by J. Lakoff, M. Johnson and their followers since the 1980s have shown that linguistic metaphors play an important role not only in poetic language, they also structure our everyday perception and thinking. However, modern versions of Whorfianism interpret the principle of linguistic relativity primarily as a hypothesis in need of empirical verification. With regard to the study of linguistic metaphor, this means that a comparative study of the principles of metaphorization in a large corpus of languages of different areas and different genetic affiliation is brought to the fore in order to find out to what extent metaphors in a particular language are the embodiment of the cultural preferences of a particular language community, and in which one they reflect the universal biopsychological properties of a person. J. Lakoff, Z. Koveches and a number of other authors showed, for example, that in such a field of concepts as human emotions, the most important layer of linguistic metaphorization is based on universal ideas about the human body, its spatial arrangement, anatomical structure, physiological reactions, etc. . It was found that in many of the surveyed languages - areal, genetically and typologically distant - emotions are described according to the "body as a container of emotions" model. At the same time, specific linguistic, intracultural variations are possible in, for example, which part of the body (or the whole body) is “responsible” for a given emotion, in the form of what substance (solid, liquid, gaseous) certain feelings are described. For example, anger and anger in many languages, including Russian (Yu.D. Apresyan and a number of other authors), are metaphorically associated with the high temperature of the liquid content - boiled with anger / rage, rage bubbles, splashed out his anger, etc. . At the same time, the seat of anger, like most other emotions in Russian, is the chest, cf. boiled in my chest. In Japanese (K. Matsuki), anger is “located” not in the chest, but in a part of the body called hara “abdominal cavity, inside”: to get angry in Japanese means to feel that hara ga tatsu “inside rises” .

Put forward more than 60 years ago, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity still retains the status of a hypothesis. Its supporters often argue that it does not need any proof, because the statement recorded in it is an obvious fact; opponents are inclined to believe that it can neither be proved nor refuted (which, from the point of view of a rigorous methodology of scientific research, takes it beyond the boundaries of science; however, these criteria themselves have been questioned since the mid-1960s). In the range between these polar assessments, more and more sophisticated and numerous attempts to empirically test this hypothesis fit.

Section 2. Modern vision of the "linguistic picture of the world" and its applied significance

Modern understanding of the "linguistic picture of the world"

As mentioned earlier, the current state of the problem of studying language pictures of the world was voiced in his works by Academician Yuri Derenikovich Apresyan. The ideas about them according to the scientist are as follows.

Natural language reflects its own way of perceiving and organizing the world. Its meanings form a single system of views, which is mandatory for all native speakers and is called the language picture of the world. It is "naive" in the sense that it often differs from the "scientific" picture of the world. At the same time, the naive ideas reflected in the language are by no means primitive: in many cases they are no less complex and interesting than scientific ones.

The study of the naive picture of the world unfolds in two main directions.

Firstly, individual concepts characteristic of a given language, a kind of linguo-cultural isoglosses and their bundles, are studied. First of all, these are "stereotypes" of linguistic and wider cultural consciousness. For example, typical Russian concepts can be distinguished: soul, longing, fate, sincerity, daring, will (free), field (clean), distance, maybe. On the other hand, these are specific connotations of non-specific concepts. In this case, we can say about the symbolism of color designations in different cultures.

Secondly, a search and reconstruction of the integral, albeit "naive", pre-scientific view of the world inherent in the language is being carried out. Developing the metaphor of linguistic geography, one could say that it is not individual isoglosses or bundles of isoglosses that are being studied, but the dialect as a whole. Although the national specificity is taken into account here with all possible completeness, the emphasis is placed precisely on the integral linguistic picture of the world. To date, scientists are more interested in this approach. Yu. D. Apresyan singled out its main provisions.

1. Each natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and organizing (conceptualizing) the world. The meanings expressed in it add up to a certain unified system of views, a kind of collective philosophy, which is imposed as mandatory on all native speakers. Once upon a time, grammatical meanings were opposed to lexical ones as subject to mandatory expression, regardless of whether they are important for the essence of a particular message or not. In recent decades, it has been found that many elements of lexical meanings are also expressed in a mandatory way.

2. The language-specific way of conceptualizing reality (view of the world) is partly universal, partly nationally specific, so that speakers of different languages can see the world a little differently through the prism of their languages.

3. On the other hand, it is "naive" in the sense that in many essential details it differs from the scientific picture of the world. At the same time, naive ideas are by no means primitive. In many cases, they are no less complex and interesting than scientific ones. Such, for example, are naive ideas about the inner world of man. They reflect the experience of introspection of dozens of generations over many millennia and are able to serve as a reliable guide to this world.

4. In the naive picture of the world, one can distinguish naive geometry, naive physics of space and time (for example, completely relativistic, albeit prescientific, concepts of space and time of the speaker and the concept of the observer), naive ethics, naive psychology, etc. Thus, from the analysis of pairs words like praise and flatter, praise and brag, promise and promise, look and peep, listen and eavesdrop, laugh (at someone) and sneer, witness and spy, curiosity and curiosity, order and push around, warning and obsequious, be proud and boast, criticize and slander, seek and harass, show (one's courage) and show off (one's courage), complain and slander, etc., one can get an idea of the fundamental commandments of Russian naive-linguistic ethics. Here are some of them: "it is not good to pursue narrowly selfish goals" (to solicit, flatter, promise); "it is not good to invade the privacy of other people" (peep, eavesdrop, spy, curiosity); "it's not good to humiliate the dignity of other people" (to push around, mock); "it's not good to forget about one's honor and dignity" (to grovel, obsequious); "it's not good to exaggerate one's own virtues and other people's shortcomings" (boast, show off, boast, slander); "it is not good to tell third parties what we do not like in the behavior and actions of our neighbors" (sneaking); etc. Of course, all these commandments are nothing more than common truths, but it is curious that they are enshrined in the meanings of words. Some positive precepts of naive ethics are also reflected in the language.

The super-task of system lexicography is to reflect the naive picture of the world embodied in a given language — naive geometry, physics, ethics, psychology, etc. Naive representations of each of these areas are not chaotic, but form certain systems and, therefore, must be described in a uniform way in the dictionary. To do this, generally speaking, it would be necessary first to reconstruct the corresponding fragment of the naive picture of the world from the data of lexical and grammatical meanings. In practice, however, in this, as in other similar cases, reconstruction and (lexicographical) description go hand in hand and constantly correct each other.

So, the concept of a linguistic picture of the world includes two interconnected, but different ideas: 1) that the picture of the world offered by the language differs from the “scientific” one (in this sense, the term “naive picture of the world” is also used) and 2) that each language “ draws" its own picture, depicting reality in a slightly different way than other languages do. Reconstruction of the linguistic picture of the world is one of the most important tasks of modern linguistic semantics. The study of the linguistic picture of the world is carried out in two directions, in accordance with the named two components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systemic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a particular language, a complete system of representations reflected in a given language is reconstructed, regardless of whether it is specific to a given language or universal, reflecting a “naive” view of the world as opposed to a “scientific” one. On the other hand, separate language-specific (linguo-specific) concepts are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they give a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages. : a translation equivalent is either completely absent (as, for example, for Russian words longing, anguish, maybe, daring, will, restless, sincerity, ashamed, insulting, uncomfortable), or such an equivalent exists in principle, but it does not contain exactly those components of the meaning , which are specific for a given word (such, for example, are the Russian words soul, fate, happiness, justice, vulgarity, separation, resentment, pity, morning, gather, get, as it were). In recent years, a trend has been developing in domestic semantics that integrates both approaches; its goal is to recreate the Russian linguistic picture of the world on the basis of a comprehensive (linguistic, cultural, semiotic) analysis of linguo-specific concepts of the Russian language in an intercultural perspective (works by Yu.D. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A. Vezhbitskaya, A.A. Zaliznyak, I.B.Levontina, E.V.Rakhilina, E.V.Uryson, A.D.Shmeleva, E.S.Yakovleva and others).

Applied value of the theory of "language picture of the world"

The analysis of language pictures of the world is of great practical importance, especially in the modern conditions of globalization and informatization, when the boundaries between countries and regions are blurred, and the potential of modern information technologies has reached unprecedented heights.

The study of the problems of language, speech and their interaction and interpenetration is of particular relevance in the context of the dialogue of cultures. A word that manifests in a particular speech situation one of his contemporary meanings, accumulates in itself all experience and knowledge (i.e. culture in broad sense words) obtained during the development of mankind, which means that it reflects a certain fragment of the linguistic picture of the world. Speaking about the culture of speech, it must be borne in mind that it should be understood not only as the observance of various norms of the language, but also as the ability, on the one hand, to choose the right means for expressing one's own thoughts, and on the other hand, to correctly decode the interlocutor's speech. Therefore, the study of the linguistic picture of the world allows you to correctly understand the interlocutor, correctly translate and interpret his speech, which seems important for solving the problems of translation and communication.

Computers have entered the life of man - he relies more and more on them. Computers print documents, manage complex technological processes, design technical objects, entertain children and adults. It is natural for a person to express himself as fully as possible in algorithmic devices, to overcome the language barrier that separated two different worlds. As already noted, language, man and reality are inextricably linked. Therefore, teaching a computer natural language is an extremely difficult task, associated with a deep penetration into the laws of thinking and language. Teaching a computer to understand natural language is almost the same as teaching it to feel the world.

Many scientists consider the solution of this problem fundamentally impossible. But one way or another, the process of rapprochement between man and his “electronic creation” has begun, and today it is still hard to imagine how it will end. In any case, a person, trying to model the task of linguistic communication, begins to understand himself much more fully, and hence his history and culture.

It is important to study the linguistic picture of the world for linguistics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, management, cultural studies, ethics, ethnography, history and other sciences. This knowledge will make it possible to study a person more deeply, to understand the still unknown principles of his activity and their foundations, to open the way to new still unknown horizons for understanding human consciousness and being.

Conclusion

As a result of the work, the task set in the introduction was achieved. The main historical and philosophical aspects of the development of the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" within the framework of various disciplines and directions were considered, as well as the areas of practical application of the accumulated knowledge.

It turned out that the theoretical basis of the subject area under consideration was laid by the German philologist, philosopher and linguist Wilhelm Humboldt in his work “On the internal form of language”. Further researchers relied on the work of the scientist, modifying it in accordance with own vision Problems.

The theory of the linguistic picture of the world was built by the German scientist Leo Weisgerber, based on the teachings of Humboldt. He was the first to introduce the concept of "linguistic picture of the world". Considering all the merits of Weisgerber as the founder of the theory, modern scientists still do not agree with the idea put forward by him that the power of language over a person is insurmountable and believe that although the linguistic picture of the world leaves a serious imprint on the individual, the effect of its power is not absolute.

Almost in parallel with Weisgerber, the Sapir-Whorf Linguistic Relativity hypothesis was developed, which also became the fundamental stone for studying the linguistic picture of the world. The hypothesis of linguistic relativity is a manifestation of relativism in linguistics. It says that the processes of perception and thinking of a person are determined by the ethno-specific features of the structure of the language. The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, the thesis according to which the systems of concepts existing in the mind of a person, and, consequently, the essential features of his thinking, are determined by the specific language that this person is a carrier of.

Put forward more than 60 years ago, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity still retains the status of a hypothesis. In the range between the polar assessments of its supporters and opponents, more and more sophisticated and numerous attempts to empirically test this hypothesis fit, which, unfortunately, have not been successful so far.

Academician Yu.D.Apresyan and his followers set out modern ideas about the linguistic picture of the world. Briefly, they can be represented as follows.

1. Each natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and organizing the world. The meanings expressed in it add up to a certain unified system of views, which is imposed as mandatory on all native speakers and is its linguistic picture.

2. The view of the world peculiar to the language is partly universal, partly nationally specific, so that speakers of different languages can see the world a little differently, through the prism of their languages.

3. The linguistic picture of the world is "naive" in the sense that it differs in many essential details from the scientific picture of the world. At the same time, naive ideas are by no means primitive. In many cases, they are no less complex and interesting than scientific ones, since they are able to serve as a reliable guide to the world of this linguistic picture.

4. In the naive picture of the world, one can single out naive geometry, naive physics, naive ethics, naive psychology, etc. From their analysis, one can extract an idea of the fundamental precepts of a particular culture, community, which allows one to understand them better.

The study of the linguistic picture of the world is engaged in a large number of scientists, among whom are Yu.D. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A. Vezhbitskaya, A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontina, E.V. E.S. Yakovlev and many others.

The study of the linguistic picture of the world is important for many sciences (linguistics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, management, cultural studies, ethics, ethnography, history, and others). This knowledge will make it possible to study a person more deeply, to understand the still unknown principles of his activity and their foundations, to open the way to new still unknown horizons for understanding human consciousness and being.

List of used literature

http://psi.webzone.ru/st/051800.htm
http://ru.wikipedia.org/
http://www.2devochki.ru/90/20739/1.html
http://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/051/698.htm
http://www.countries.ru/library/culturologists/sepir.htm
http://www.gramota.ru/
http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/44837
http://www.islu.ru/danilenko/articles/vaiskart.htm
http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/06/1000619/1000619a1.htm
http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/77/1007714/1007714a1.htm
http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/87/1008759/1008759a1.htm
http://www.yazyk.net/page.php?id=38
Anisimov A.V. Computational Linguistics for All: Myths. Algorithms. Language - Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka, 1991. - 208 p.
Apresyan Yu.D. Selected Works, Volume II. Integral description of the language and system lexicography. - M.: School "Languages of Russian Culture", 1995. - 767 p.
Big Electronic Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius
Luger George F. Artificial Intelligence: Strategies and Methods for Solving Complex Problems, 4th edition - M .: Williams Publishing House, 2005. - 864 p.

Concept(from lat. conceptus - thought, concept) - the semantic meaning of the name (sign), i.e. the content of the concept, the volume of which is the subject (denotation) of this name (for example, the semantic meaning of the name Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth).

Weisgerber Leo(Weisgerber, Johann Leo) (1899–1985), German philologist. Studied comparative linguistics, Germanic studies, as well as Romanistics and Celtology. Weisgerber explored questions of the history of language. The most important work is the four-volume book “On the Forces of the German Language” (“Von den Krften der deutschen Sprache”), in which the provisions of his linguo-philosophical concept are formulated and substantiated. Of Weisgerber's late works, his book "Twice Language" ("Zweimal Sprache", 1973) deserves special attention.

Humboldt Wilhelm(1767-1835), German philologist, philosopher, linguist, statesman, diplomat. He developed the doctrine of language as a continuous creative process, as a “forming organ of thought” and about the “inner form of language”, as an expression of the individual worldview of the people.

Wilhelm von Humboldt's opposition "ergon - energy" correlates with another opposition: "Language is not a dead product, but a creative process." Within the framework of the Humboldtian dialectical picture of the world, language and everything connected with it appear either as something ready, finished (ergon), or as being in the process of formation (energy). So, from one point of view, the material of the language appears as already produced, and from the other, as if it never reaches the state of completeness, completeness. Developing the first point of view, Humboldt writes that every nation receives from time immemorial the material of its language from previous generations, and the activity of the spirit, working on the development of the expression of thoughts, deals with ready-made material and, accordingly, does not create, but only transforms. Developing the second point of view, Humboldt notes that the composition of the words of a language cannot be represented as a finished mass. Not to mention the constant formation of new words and forms, the entire stock of words in a language, as long as the language lives in the mouths of the people, is a continuously produced and reproduced result of word-formation forces. It is reproduced, firstly, by the whole people, to whom the language owes its form, in the teaching of speech to children, and, finally, in the daily use of speech. In the language as in the "eternally repeating work of the spirit" there cannot be a single moment of stagnation, its nature is continuous development under the influence of the spiritual power of each speaker. The spirit is constantly striving to introduce something new into the language, so that, having embodied this new in it, it will again become under its influence.

Cassirer Ernst(Cassirer, Ernst) (1874–1945), German philosopher and historian. Peru Cassirer owns an extensive historical work "The problem of knowledge in the philosophy and science of modern times" ("Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit", 1906-1957), in which a systematic presentation of the problem is followed by its history from antiquity to the 40s years of the 20th century. Bringing together the results of his studies in cultural studies, science and history, he published another three-volume work - "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms" ("Philosophie der symbolischen Formen", 1923-1929). In these and other works, Cassirer analyzed the functions of language, myth and religion, art and history as "symbolic forms" through which a person gains an understanding of himself and the world around him.

Whorf Benjamin Lee(1897 - 1941) - American linguist, ethnographer. Investigated the problem of the relationship between language and thinking. Under the influence of the ideas of E. Sapir and as a result of observations on the Uto-Aztecan languages, he formulated the hypothesis of linguistic relativity (the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - see below).

Boas(Boas) Franz (1858 - 1942), American linguist, ethnographer and anthropologist, founder of the "cultural anthropology" school. Boas developed the foundations of a strictly descriptive methodology for the analysis of languages and cultures, which became the methodology of cultural anthropology, the most significant school in American cultural studies and ethnography. He was one of the first to demonstrate a comprehensive descriptive approach to the study of peoples and cultures, which would later become the scientific norm of 20th century anthropology. Unlike most anthropologists of his time, he refused to believe that the so-called "primitive" peoples are at an earlier stage of development than the "civilized", opposing this ethnocentric view of cultural relativism, that is, the belief that all cultures, no matter how they were different in appearance, developed and valuable in the same way.

Yuri Derenik Apresyan(born 1930) is a Russian linguist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1992). Author of works in the field of semantics, syntax, lexicography, structural and mathematical linguistics, machine translation, etc. Among his works are: "Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics (brief essay)", 1966, "Experimental study of the semantics of the Russian verb", 1967 , "Integral description of the language and systemic lexicography // Selected works", "Languages of Russian culture", 1995 .

Isogloss(from iso ... and Greek glossa - language, speech) - a line on the map, denoting in linguistic geography the boundaries of the distribution of any linguistic phenomenon (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical, etc.). For example, it is possible to carry out I. showing the spread in the southwestern regions of the RSFSR of the word "talk" in the meaning of "speak". Along with the general term "I." private ones are also used - isophone (I., showing the spread of sound), isosyntagma (I., showing the spread of a syntactic phenomenon), etc.

II. Linguistic picture of the world Each language has its own linguistic picture of the world, according to which the native speaker organizes the content of the utterance. This is how the specifically human perception of the world, fixed in the language, manifests itself.
Language is the most important way of forming human knowledge about the world. Displaying the objective world in the process of activity, a person fixes the results of cognition in words. The totality of this knowledge, imprinted in a linguistic form, is what is commonly called the "linguistic picture of the world." “If the world is a person and the environment in their interaction, then the picture of the world is the result of processing information about the environment and the person.”

Within the framework of the anthropocentric scientific approach, the linguistic picture is presented as a system of images containing the surrounding reality.
The picture of the world can be represented using spatial, temporal, quantitative, ethnic and other parameters. Its formation is greatly influenced by traditions, language, nature, upbringing, education and many social factors.

The originality of the national experience determines the features of the picture of the world of different peoples. Due to the specifics of the language, in turn, a certain linguistic picture of the world is formed, through the prism of which a person perceives the world. Concepts are components of the language picture of the world, through the analysis of which it is possible to identify some features of the national worldview

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD, historically formed in the everyday consciousness of a given linguistic community and reflected in the language of a set of ideas about the world, a certain way of conceptualizing reality. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world goes back to the ideas of W. von Humboldt and neo-Humboldtians (Weisgerber and others) about internal form of the tongue, on the one hand, and to the ideas of American ethnolinguistics, in particular the so-called hypothesis of linguistic relativity Sapir - Whorf - on the other.

Modern ideas about the language picture of the world as presented by Acad. YD Apresyan look like this.

Reconstruction of the linguistic picture of the world is one of the most important tasks of modern linguistic semantics. The study of the linguistic picture of the world is carried out in two directions, in accordance with the named two components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systemic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a particular language, a complete system of representations reflected in a given language is reconstructed, regardless of whether it is specific to a given language or universal, reflecting a “naive” view of the world as opposed to a “scientific” one. On the other hand, separate language-specific (=linguo-specific) concepts are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they give a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages: a translation equivalent or none at all (as, for example, for Russian words yearning , tear , maybe , prowess , will , restless , sincerity ,ashamed ,it's a shame ,uncomfortable), or such an equivalent, in principle, exists, but it does not contain precisely those meaning components that are specific for a given word (such, for example, are the Russian words soul , fate , happiness , justice , vulgarity , parting , resentment , a pity , morning , going to , get ,as if). In recent years, a trend has been developing in domestic semantics that integrates both approaches; its goal is to recreate the Russian linguistic picture of the world on the basis of a comprehensive (linguistic, cultural, semiotic) analysis of linguo-specific concepts of the Russian language in an intercultural perspective (works by Yu.D. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A. Vezhbitskaya, Anna A. Zaliznyak, I. B.Levontina, E.V.Rakhilina, E.V.Uryson, A.D.Shmeleva, E.S.Yakovleva and others).

Vorotnikov Yu. L. "Linguistic picture of the world": interpretation of the concept

Formulation of the problem. In recent years, the linguistic picture of the world has become one of the most “fashionable” topics of Russian linguistics. And at the same time, as is often the case with notations that have become widespread, there is still no clear enough idea of what exactly the meaning is put into this concept by writers and how, in fact, it should be interpreted by readers?

It can, of course, be argued that the concept of a linguistic picture of the world is one of those “broad” concepts, the justification for the use of which is not mandatory, or, more precisely, is taken for granted. After all, there are few such researchers who would begin their work in the field, for example, morphology, by defining their understanding of the essence of language, although it is quite clear that they will have to use the word “language” repeatedly in the course of presentation. Moreover, if you ask them what a language is, many will not immediately be able to answer this question. Moreover, the quality of this particular work will not necessarily be directly related to the ability of its author to interpret the meaning of the concepts used.

However, referring the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" to the number of such initial concepts of linguistics as "language", "speech", "word" and the like, one important circumstance should be borne in mind. All of the above concepts can be used as “self-evident” to a certain extent, in a sense “a priori”, because a huge literature is devoted to them, they are, as it were, polished by the use of great authorities who have broken many copies in disputes about their essence. That is why it is often enough not to give one's own definition of such a concept, but simply to refer to one of its authoritative definitions.

Some indifference or, if you like, composure of linguists to this side of the issue must have and, of course, has its own rational explanation. One of them boils down to the following. The expression “linguistic picture of the world” is essentially not terminological to this day, it is used as a metaphor, albeit a successful one, and to give definitions to a metaphorical expression is, generally speaking, a thankless task. In the same area where the word "picture" is used terminologically (namely, in art history), the attitude towards it, of course, is completely different and the battles around its conceptual content can be no less heated than around the content of the term "word" in linguistics.

And yet, the very fact of the heightened interest of linguists in problems, one way or another connected with the picture of the world, indicates that this expression refers to something related to the basics, which determines the essence of the language, or rather, is perceived as defining its essence "now", i.e. i.e. at the present stage of development of the science of language (it is possible, however, that “here”, i.e., in the science of the “Western” area in the broad sense of the word).

The fact that a certain new archetype gradually (and to a certain extent unconsciously) enters the consciousness of linguists, predetermining the direction of the entire set of linguistic studies, seems quite obvious. It is possible, paraphrasing the title of one of Martin Heidegger's articles, to say that for the science of language the "time of the language picture of the world" has come. And if we specify the characteristics of the moment even more, then the time for in-depth reflection on the content of the very concept of “linguistic picture of the world”, in our opinion, has already come.

Position of M. Heidegger. The expression “linguistic picture of the world” suggests that there may be other ways of representing it in pictures, and all these ways are based on the very possibility of representing the world as a picture. "Imagine the world as a picture" - what, in fact, does this mean? What is the world in this expression, what is the picture, and who represents the world in the form of a picture? Martin Heidegger tried to give answers to all these questions in his article "The Time of the Picture of the World", published for the first time in 1950. The basis of this article was the report "Justification of the New European Picture of the World by Metaphysics", read by the philosopher back in 1938. Heidegger's thoughts expressed in this report, significantly outstripped the subsequent discussions in the science of science about the essence of the general scientific picture of the world and have not lost their significance in our time.

According to Heidegger, in the expression "picture of the world" the world appears "as a designation of beings as a whole". Moreover, this name “is not limited by space, nature. History also belongs to the world. And yet, even nature, history, and both of them together in their latent and aggressive interpenetration do not exhaust the world. This word also means the basis of the world, regardless of how its relation to the world is thought.

The picture of the world is not just an image of the world, not something copied: "The picture of the world, essentially understood, thus means not a picture depicting the world, but the world understood in the sense of such a picture." According to Heidegger, “Where the world becomes a picture, there they start to exist as a whole as to what a person is aimed at and what he accordingly wants to present to himself, to have in front of him and thereby in a decisive sense to present in front of him” , moreover, to present it in everything that is inherent in it and constitutes it as a system.

Asking the question whether each epoch of history has its own picture of the world and each time is concerned with building its own picture of the world, Heidegger answers it in the negative. The picture of the world is possible only there and then, where and when the being of the existent is “searched for and found in the representation of the existent”. Since such an interpretation of the existent is impossible, neither for the Middle Ages, nor for antiquity, it is impossible to speak about the medieval and ancient picture of the world. Turning the world into a picture is distinguishing feature New time, new European view of the world. Moreover, and this is very important, “the transformation of the world into a picture is the same process as the transformation of a person within the existent into a subiectum” .

The consequence of the crossing of these two processes, i.e., the transformation of the world into a picture, and man into a subject, is the transformation of the science of the world into a science of man, characteristic of the New Age, that is, into anthropology, understood as such a philosophical interpretation of man, “when what is in as a whole is interpreted and evaluated from the person and by the person. Related to this is the emergence of the word “worldview” since the end of the 18th century as a designation of a person’s position in the midst of existence, “when a person, as a subject, raised his own life to the commanding position of a universal reference point” .

In the first chapter "Linguistic picture of the world. Definition. General and particular characteristics"

the picture of the world is considered as the main element of the human worldview, its main characteristics

ki and the process of forming a linguistic picture of the world

The phenomenon called "picture of the world" is as ancient as man himself. Creation of a

The first pictures of the world in humans coincide in time with the process of anthropogenesis. However, the reality

called the term "picture of the world", has become the subject of scientific and philosophical consideration only in a few

a long time ago.

The urgent need to put forward the concept of "picture of the world" in various spheres of human

ing activity usually arises in two cases: if necessary, to comprehend the situation of irrigation

variance of coexisting positions in this area and the situation of successively replacing each other

other paradigms. Both the first and second cases can be based on sources of two types:

made from within a society that has this picture of the world (“self-description”) and on “other-description”

niya" produced by external observers [Raevsky 1995: 209].

original glo-

ballroom image of the world , , representing essential

properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and which is the result of all the spiritual activity of man

century[Russell 1997: 143]. The picture of the world appears with such an interpretation as a subjective image of an object.

active reality and, therefore, enters the class of the ideal, which, without ceasing to be an image

reality, is objectified in symbolic forms, without being fully imprinted in any of them.

The picture of the world contains a global image of the world. From a semiological point of view, in any

image as a semiotic object, one can single out its content and form, meaningful properties

and formal. Consider first the content (essential) properties of the picture of the world, and then

formal, taking into account some additional aspects of characterizing the properties of the picture

The starting point for understanding the nature and essential properties of the picture of the world is that

the fact that it is a subjective image of objective reality created by man.

The world is infinite, but man is finite and limited in his possibilities of understanding the world. Any card-

on the world, created by seeing the world through certain interpretive prisms, always with

inevitably contains features of human subjectivity, specificity. The picture of the world is

It is the core of a person's worldview and carries its main properties.

The basic property of the picture of the world as the core of the worldview lies in its cosmological orientation.

orientation (it is a global image of the world) while anthropomorphic (it is not

set in itself the features of a specifically human way of understanding the world)

[Levi-Strauss 1995: 347].

The picture of the world is the initial element of a person's worldview, and not just his worldview, for

it is characterized by an obligatory action with a simultaneously semi-conscious character.

The most important feature of the picture of the world is its internal unconditional reliability for

the subject of this picture. The picture of the world is considered by its bearers not as a picture and is not realized

as a historically concrete vision of reality, but as a semantic twin of the world. The image of the world is perceived

taken in the picture of the world as reality itself.

The picture of the world is a dialectical unity of statics and dynamics, stability and

variability. This synthesis of timelessness and the concrete historicity of the appearance is the essence of

a new paradox connected with the picture of the world. To perform its functions as a regulator of life,

The picture of the world must combine both stability and dynamism in the realm of human existence. Stability -

one of the essential properties of the picture of the world. If we consider the picture of the world in its entirety,

as an image of the world, which is constantly refined and concretized in the process of human life, then, obviously, it should be recognized that the picture of the world is not eternal even within the life of one

person. It is constantly being adjusted, supplemented, refined as experience and knowledge are accumulated.

particular individual and society as a whole.

The picture of the world is a synthesis of two opposites: the finite and the infinite. Human

human life experience is finite, and the world, the image of which is formed in a person in the process of this experience,

endless. The communication of a finite person with an infinite world results in the development

image of the world, combining both of these features. As the historical movement of mankind, the image

world is becoming more and more definite in many respects.

Let us consider some formal properties of the picture of the world. The picture of the world is the regulator

the widest action, and its many structural and substantial features are largely

degrees are determined by this circumstance.

In order to realistically portray the existing global in the localization of funds, the subject of the picture

of the world, obviously, should leave it as if not completed to the end. For all its oriented

system, the picture of the world is always in all its details an unfinished image, not completed

completed sketch. The picture must have gaps. The presence of gaps in the picture is not an underworking

tannost picture of the world, but a consequence of the peculiarities of the world and man. The world is endless and mysterious for man

lovek, and man is finite and limited in his cognitive abilities.

Although the picture of the world tends to a panoramic view of reality, the breadth and

dimension, it must have its own limit of complexity, its own allowable limit of detail in in-

a differentiated representation of a person depicted in the mind, in which there may be a

part of his picture of the world is clear.

When studying the problem of reflecting the picture of the world in human language, one usually proceeds from

a simple triad: the surrounding reality, the reflection of this reality in the human brain and the expression of the results of this reflection in the language. At the same time, it is obviously assumed that a person reflects

expresses this reality correctly, and this reality is reflected in the language just as correctly.

In fact, all these processes look much more complicated. First of all, it should be noted

that a person is never able to reflect the world around him in all its diversity, entirely and

fully. Learning about the world around us is always a process, sometimes quite a long one. Structure

human cognitive apparatus is not adapted to immediately and completely reproduce in

perfect shaped object in all its complexity.

Another feature of the process of cognition is that the results of human cognition are surrounded by

living world are never on the same level. There are a lot of different cities here.

tions, which may depend on age, life experience, the field in which a person works

melts, profession, level of education, ability to perceive something, as well as many others

reasons and factors.

Communication between individuals becomes possible if in linguistic signs and

sign structures developed universal significance. This means that some commonality in the language

are, as it were, above the levels of concrete cognition of the surrounding world. In the role of such communities, you

the general meanings of words come into play. The fact is that the separate use of a word in speech is by no means

its definitive characterization. Rather, it plays the role of a stimulus. It excites in the interlocutor a certain sum of the most general differential features that make it possible for the interlocutor to

no one to identify the subject in question.

The designation as a form of the relation of the word to reality appears in specific form, in

title form. The sound side of the word is that material, sensually perceived basis.

howl, thanks to which the word becomes a signal of the second signal system and is closely associated with

a function of reflecting reality [Galkina-Fedoruk 1996: 113].

Only a human being is capable of reflecting the phenomena of the surrounding world and their regular connections.

brain. The results of his cognitive work are fixed in concepts. The sound system itself

reflects nothing.

The sound complex is pronounced in order for the listener to recognize the indicated given

sound complex object or its sign (qualitative or procedural). Absolutely clear,

that for this purpose there is no need to reproduce the entire amount of information about

given subject, which may be in the mind of the listener. The meaning of the designation is

so that the listener identifies the object by some minimum of differential features. However, he

I could never understand anything if the sound complex did not matter. The value that is all-

when established by people, actually plays the role of pointing to this complex of differential

signs [Gorsky 1997: 226 – 227].

The most important step in the process of creating a verbal sign is giving it meaning. But-

namation on any basis is a purely technical language device. The sign chosen for the name (creation of the sound shell of the word) is far from exhausting the whole essence

object, does not reveal all its features.

Using the language, people in a certain number of sentences reveal their meanings in one way or another.

about various subjects and reveal their essence. But the description of the process itself is very difficult and

technically not feasible.

Compared with language, thinking is, as a rule, richer in its content and more mobile. Process

thinking lies in the formation of ever new connections between different ideas and understanding

ties, it is characterized by constant "fluidity". Words are more stable, more conservative than concepts,

and in this sense reflect the process of development of reality less adequately [Biryukov 1997: 68].

The ability of the human brain to reflect a picture of the world does not always mean that this picture is

rages correctly. Cognition is carried out by people who, due to lack of appropriate

factors can make wrong messages, form concepts, link them into a system

in an unsatisfactory way. Knowledge of the world, therefore, is not free from errors and delusions.

In the second chapter "Linguoculturological aspect of the formation of linguistic pictures of the world and

human language behavior" the linguoculturological aspect of the process of

formation of the linguistic picture of the world, the influence of national mentality on the linguistic behavior of a person,

linguistic and cultural personality and its characteristics, as well as the role of the gender factor in society, culture

Between the picture of the world as a reflection of the real world and the linguistic picture of the world as a fixation

of this reflection, there are complex relationships. The picture of the world can be represented using

space ( top bottom , right left , east - west , distant - near), temporary ( day -

night , winter summer), quantitative, ethical and other parameters. Its formation is influenced by language,

traditions, nature and landscape, education, training and other social factors.

The linguistic picture of the world is not in line with special pictures of the world (chemical, physical

etc.), it precedes them and forms them, because a person is able to understand the world and himself

thanks to the language in which socio-historical experience is fixed - both universal and

and national. The last one determines the specific features of the language at all its levels. AT

due to the specificity of the language in the minds of its speakers, a certain linguistic picture of the world arises, through

lens through which one sees the world.

of this ethnic group, which becomes the foundation of all cultural stereotypes. Her analysis helps

understand how national cultures differ, how they complement each other at the global level

culture. Moreover, if the meanings of all words were culturally specific, then in general there would be no

it is possible to explore cultural differences. Therefore, dealing with the cultural and national aspect,

it is necessary to take into account the universal properties of language units.

Language is what lies on the surface of human being in culture, therefore, starting from the 19th century. (I.

Grimm, R. Raek, W. Humboldt, A. Potebnya) and to this day the problem of interconnection, interaction of language

and culture is one of the central in linguistics.

Language and culture are interrelated: 1) in communication processes; 2) in ontogeny (formation

language abilities of a person); 3) in phylogenesis (the formation of a generic, social person).

These two entities differ as follows: 1) language as a phenomenon is dominated by the orientation towards mass

owl addressee, while culture values elitism; 2) although culture is a sign system

(like a language), but it is not able to organize itself; 3) language and culture are different semiotic

systems [Losev 1992: 426 – 429]. These considerations lead to the conclusion that culture is not

isomorphic (absolutely corresponds), and homomorphic to the language (structurally similar).

The picture that is the correlation of language and culture is extremely complex and multifaceted.

pectna. The relationship between language and culture can be seen as a relationship of part and whole.

Language can be perceived as a component of culture and as an instrument of culture (which is not the same thing). One-

However, language is at the same time autonomous in relation to culture as a whole, and it can be considered as

an independent, autonomous semiotic system, i.e. separate from culture, which is done in the traditional

noah linguistics.

As you know, a person, a person, creates culture and lives in it. It's in the personality to the front

plan comes out the social nature of man, and the man himself acts as a result as a subject of socio-

cultural life.

Personality should be considered in the perspective of the cultural tradition of the people, ethnic group, because for the

The birth of a person in a person requires a cultural and anthropological prototype, which is formed

within culture [Piskoppel 1997].

1) value, worldview, component of the content of education, i.e. value system, or

life meanings. Language provides an initial and deep view of the world, forms that language.

kovy image of the world and the hierarchy of spiritual ideas that underlie the formation of national

of a natural nature and are realized in the process of linguistic dialogue communication;

2) cultural component, i.e. the level of mastering culture as an effective means of

increased interest in the language. Involving the facts of the culture of the language being studied, related to the rules

speech and non-verbal behavior, contributes to the formation of skills for adequate use and

effective impact on the communication partner;

3) personal component, i.e. that individual, deep, that is in every person [Wine-

gradov 1996].

Thus, a linguocultural personality can be defined as fixed in the language (pre-

especially in vocabulary and syntax) the basic national cultural prototype of the carrier is determined

language, constituting the timeless and invariant part of the personality structure.

A person appears in two guises - a man and a woman. Opposition "male - female" -

fundamental to human culture.

Socially and culturally significant differences in the behavior, customs and socialization of men in general

and women__ have been sporadically recorded in scientific description, especially in anthropology and ethnography.

However, the idea of distinguishing between the concepts of biological sex and social sex (gender) arose only

during the period of postmodernism.

In the works of M. Rosaldo, L. Lamfere, R. Unger, A. Rich, G. Rabin, the concept gender interpreted as on the-

set of agreements by which society transforms biological sexuality into a product of human

evening activity[Pushkareva 1999: 147].

of the last century and was used first in history, historiography, sociology and psychology, and then

la was also accepted in linguistics, proving to be fruitful for pragmatics and anthropologically oriented

descriptions in general. The gender factor, which takes into account the natural sex of a person and his social

consequences", is one of the essential characteristics of the personality and throughout her life

in a certain way affects her awareness of her identity, as well as the identification of speaking

common subject by other members of society.

At the same time, there is no single view on the nature of gender in science until today. He is attributed with

on the one hand, to mental constructs, or models developed in order to more clearly define

scientific description of the problems of sex and the delimitation of its biological and socio-cultural functions. With a friend

On the other hand, gender is seen as a social construct created by society, including

the resource of the language.

The study of the relationship between the language and the gender of its speakers is usually divided into two periods,

which are the 60s of the last century:

1) biological determinism - irregular (and not related to related sciences) research

opinions based mainly on observations of disparate facts;

2) gender studies proper - large-scale studies that have been going on since the 60s

of the last century and due to the growing interest in the pragmatic aspect of linguistics, the development

sociolinguistics and significant changes in the traditional distribution of male and female

women's roles in society, which made it possible to see linguistic facts in a new light and in a new way

interpret them.

It was during this period that several linguistic directions were formed, differing

according to conceptual settings, research methods and the nature of the material being studied:

1 Sociolinguistic gender studies.

2 Feminist linguistics.

3 Specifically gender studies that study both sexes.

4 Masculinity Study ( men's studies) is the newest direction that emerged at the beginning

le 90s last century

5 Psycholinguistic study of gender, which has recently become closely related to neurolinguistics.

This also includes the biodeterministic direction, which proceeds from the natural predetermination of cognitive

significant differences between men and women, due to unequal hormonal balance,

as well as the study of children's speech.

6 Cross-cultural, linguistic and cultural studies, including the hypothesis of gender sub-

cultures.

These areas from different angles study the following groups of problems:

1 The language and the reflection of gender in it: the nominative system, lexicon, syntax, gender category and

a number of similar objects. The purpose of this approach is to describe and explain how it manifests-

the presence of people of different sexes in the language, what assessments are attributed to men and women, and in what

semantic areas they are most common. It can be like studying one language,

and comparative works.

2 Speech behavior of men and women, where typical strategies and tactics are highlighted, gender

a specific choice of vocabulary units, ways to achieve success in communication - that is, special

fic of male and female speaking. In this area, in turn, there are several

conceptual approaches, primarily the theory of sociocultural determinism and the theory of biodeterminism.

It should be noted that _______ the named directions did not replace each other, but "grew" one from the other

th, and currently continue to coexist, in some cases competing with each other.

Many researchers in the field of linguistics consider language as the most important factor among the nationally specific components of culture. According to Yu.D. Apresyan, each natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and organizing the world. The meanings expressed in it add up to a certain unified system of views, a kind of collective philosophy, which is imposed as mandatory on all native speakers. In modern linguistics, this phenomenon is called the language picture of the world.

The mechanism for the formation of a linguistic picture of the world is as follows: in the acts of thinking, information about the surrounding world is processed. A more or less complete picture of the world is formed in the mind, which largely determines human behavior. But the creation of a picture of the world is influenced not only by knowledge, but also by beliefs, opinions, and assessments. The picture of the world formed as a result of such activity is constantly supplemented and modified in the further process of life.

IN AND. Postovalova, in her study on the picture of the world, notes the following: “Apparently, the so-called phenomenon has all the features of the picture of the world - it contains an image of the world, the essential features of which are distinguished from the position of a person and his interests, is isomorphic to the world, in which it has its own empirical correlates, is not questioned in its essential features, serves as an eternal regulator of human life, orienting a person to a certain attitude to the world, causing in him corresponding expectations about the world and forming behavioral stereotypes in the communicative space of human communication.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the linguistic picture of the world is a verbalized part of the conceptual picture of the world, as well as its deep layer and top, taking into account the significance of knowledge embodied in the linguistic form for its structuring.

In the aspect of studying the linguistic conceptualization of various spheres of social activity, the following statement is relevant: since the linguistic picture of the world is created in the course of nominative activity, the nature of the relationship between the conceptual and linguistic systems is best studied by examining this activity itself and establishing in the process of such analysis the direction of nominative activity to designate well-defined fragments of the world, and real means and methods of nomination, and the national and cultural flavor of what is happening.

O.A. Kornilov, in his work devoted to the study of language pictures of the world, concludes the following: “Any national language performs several basic functions: the function of communication (communicative), the function of communication (informative), the function of influence (emotive) and, which is especially important for us, the function of fixation and storage the whole complex of knowledge and ideas of the given language community about the world. Such universal, global knowledge - the result of the work of the collective consciousness - is fixed in the language, primarily in its lexical and phraseological composition. But there are different types of human consciousness: the individual consciousness of an individual, the collective everyday consciousness of a nation, scientific consciousness. The result of understanding the world by each of the types of consciousness is fixed in the matrices of the language that serves this type of consciousness. Thus, we should talk about the plurality of language pictures of the world: about the scientific language picture of the world, national language, about the linguistic picture of the world of an individual”.

IN AND. Postovalova argues that the image of the world, imprinted in the language, differs in many significant details from the scientific picture of the world, from which it follows that the linguistic picture of the world is of a pre-scientific nature.

The relationship between language, culture and the world is seen as follows. The reflection of the world in the language is the collective creativity of the people who speak this language, and each new generation receives with their native language a complete set of culture, which already contains the features of the national character, worldview (just think about the inner formula of this beautiful word: worldview, vision of the world!), morality, etc. Language thus reflects the world and culture and forms its bearer. It is a mirror and an instrument of culture at the same time, it performs passive functions of reflection and active functions of creation.

The idea of the existence of national-specific language pictures of the world originated in German philology in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. (Michaelis, Herder, Humboldt). We are talking, firstly, about the fact that language as an ideal, objectively existing structure subjugates, organizes the perception of the world by its speakers. And secondly, about the fact that language - a system of pure significances - forms its own world, as if pasted on the real world.

First of all, the national features of the picture of the world are subjected to linguistic conceptualization. Because the formation of personality takes place in a certain socio-cultural space, the linguistic picture of the world of this society is also nationally conditioned.

The book "The Human Factor in Language" says that the conceptual and linguistic pictures of the world correlate with each other as a whole with a part. The linguistic picture of the world is a part of the cultural (conceptual) picture, although the most significant one. However, the linguistic picture is poorer than the cultural one, since, along with the linguistic one, other types of mental activity are involved in the creation of the latter, and also due to the fact that the sign is always inaccurate and is based on any one sign.

The definition of the picture of the world given in the book “The Human Factor in Language”, as it seems to us, loses sight of the physical activity of a person and his physical experience of perceiving the surrounding world: “The most adequate understanding of the picture of the world is its definition as the initial global image of the world underlying worldview of a person, representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and being the result of all spiritual activity of a person.

And yet it should be noted that the spiritual and physical activities of a person are inseparable from each other, and the exclusion of any of these two components is illegal when it comes to the cultural and conceptual picture of the world.

An analysis of the current state of development of the problem of the correlation of the linguistic picture of the world and linguistic conceptualization suggests that the cultural and linguistic pictures of the world are closely interconnected, are in a state of continuous interaction and go back to the real picture of the world, or rather, simply to the real world surrounding a person, to reality. .

Bibliography:

1. Eroshenko A.R. Moral sphere as an object and result of linguistic conceptualization: linguocultural and cognitive aspects: Abstract of the thesis. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. Stavropol, 2007.

3. Postovalova V.I. The picture of the world in human life // The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. M., 1988. S.8-69.

5. The human factor in the language. Rep. ed. E. S. Kubryakova. M., 1988.

Rus-Bryushinina Ines Valentina

Kuban State Technological University, Preparatory Faculty for Foreign Citizens, Art. teacher Department of Humanitarian disciplines and sports.

Rus-Suniga Vera Aleksandrovna

Kuban State Technological University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Senior Lecturer of the Russian Language Department.

§1.1. The culturological imperative of introducing the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" into scientific use

The emergence of the very concept of "linguistic picture of the world" is due, as it seems to us, to the action of two factors that independently contributed to its emergence. We will call these factors IMPERATIVES in the sense that they caused (for various reasons) the introduction of this concept into everyday life. For the time being, we avoid calling the expression “linguistic picture of the world” a term for the simple reason that the term, by definition, must correspond to a strict scientific definition, which, as far as we know, does not yet exist. Born as a beautiful metaphor, JCM subsequently received many interpretations, each of which focused on certain aspects of the designated concept, but none of them could claim the role of a generally accepted and exhaustive definition that could transfer the concept of JCM to the category of scientific concepts. , and the expression itself - in the category of terms.

To transfer the phrase "linguistic picture of the world" from the category of figurative expressions, from the category, although bright, but rather amorphous designation, which, at the will of the user, can be filled with very arbitrary content, into the category of terms - such is the macro goal of this work.

To solve this problem, we have to pose and solve a number of questions, the first of which concerns the sources, the reasons for the appearance of this abstract concept. Who and why had a desire (or a need) to operate with such an unusual abstract category? Let us clarify that we mean not just the concept of "picture of the world" or "scientific picture of the world", which we spoke about in the previous chapter, but precisely the "linguistic picture of the world". This clarification is of a fundamental nature for us, since in many works these concepts are not differentiated, they are mixed up, and often replace each other, which, in our opinion, is completely unacceptable and is a serious mistake. We propose to single out two imperatives for introducing the concept of JKM into scientific use: CULTURO-LOGICAL and LINGUISTIC. Representatives of these two sciences felt the need to create and use a mental artifact, which received this very figurative designation. Let's take a closer look at each of the above imperatives.

Acquaintance with any culture, its study will always be incomplete and in some sense even superficial, if in the field of view of a person who has turned to this culture, there is no such fundamental component as the way of thinking of the nation, the national logic of world perception and worldview. “... What kind of “grid of coordinates” does this people capture the world and, accordingly, what kind of cosmos (in the ancient sense of the word: as the structure of the world, the world order) is built before its eyes. This special “turn”, in which the existence of this people appears, constitutes the national image of the world” (Gachev, 1988, p. 44).

In the emotional words of the famous culturologist and philologist, the need to find SOMETHING that would allow a person belonging to a different culture to look at the world from a different “point of view” is clearly expressed. “...People...come up against some limit of understanding. The same words, formulas are pronounced, but very different things are thought under them - and the main trouble is that they are often not even aware of this. In order for the imaginary mutual understanding to be as close as possible to the real one, it is necessary to make an adjustment for the national-historical system of concepts and values, i.e., take into account that a representative of another people may see the world somewhat differently than I do. But how? What does he see in the world that I don't see? And what does it depend on? Here's the catch. If we could somehow clarify this issue, we would have at our disposal some kind of “coefficient” that would facilitate contacts between peoples and cultures” (Gachev, 1988, p. 44-45).

Such a “grid of coordinates that captures the world”, a kind of “mi glasses”, through which representatives of this culture look at the world and thanks to which they see in this world only THAT and only SO, like other carriers of the same “glasses”, is certainly national way of thinking, which is fixed in the national language of the representatives of this culture. Is the language only a reflection of national thinking, or does it itself determine it - this is a separate topic, which we will address in the corresponding section. In the meantime, it is important for us to follow the chain: the dissimilarity of cultures >) awareness of this dissimilarity -»-> attempts to find the "understanding coefficient" of another culture ->-> "understanding coefficient" = a special warehouse of national thinking>) reflection and fixation of the warehouse of national thinking in the language . Hence the logical conclusion, which has become practically a commonplace in discussions on this topic, is about the inseparable connection between the culture of the people and its language.

Language is an integral and most important part of any national culture, a full acquaintance with which necessarily involves not only the study of the material component of this culture, not only knowledge of its historical, geographical, economic and other determinants, but also an attempt to penetrate into the way of thinking of the nation, an attempt to look at the world through the eyes of the bearers of this culture, from their “point of view”. This can be done only by learning the language spoken by representatives of a given cultural society. At the same time, we put into the expression “learn a language” a slightly different meaning from the traditional one: we do not mean the ability to solve certain communicative tasks with the help of this language, but a deep penetration into the plane of the signified of this language, into its semantics. It would seem that the first is impossible without the second, and indeed, the ability to express one's thoughts in a foreign language and the ability to understand foreign speech presuppose knowledge of not only the grammatical structure of the language, but also its vocabulary. However, such knowledge of the vocabulary, as a rule, does not at all mean a deep immersion in the plan of the content of a foreign language. Most often, this is just a search for equivalents to the words of the native language, a kind of formal replacement of “labels” with a supposedly unchanged meaning. This is the deepest delusion; the perception of the content side of a foreign language as a set of equivalents to the words of the native language only creates the illusion of knowing what is hidden behind seemingly understandable words. What is needed for an adequate perception of such an important component of any culture as the national language?

Very concisely and accurately about the connection between culture and language, Edvard Sapir said in his work “Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech: “Culture can be defined as WHAT a given society does and thinks. Language is HOW they think” (Sapir, 1993, p. 193). Having agreed with this definition, we must admit that we PENETrate into the NATION’S WAY OF THINKING, ITS WAY OF SEEING THE WORLD, we understand the peculiarities of the mentality of the bearers of a given culture and a given language, only AFTER RECOGNIZING THE PLAN OF THE CONTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE, and a deep acquaintance with the semantics of a foreign language, in turn, presupposes, in our opinion, the mastery of the linguistic picture of the world (LCM) of this particular national language as a system of its vision of the world.

JKM in cultural studies can be used in two ways:

As a huge "pantry" of illustrative linguistic material to confirm certain features of the national character. These features can be a priori attributed to a given people, considered generally accepted or already proven - it does not matter. The main thing is that in this case JKM is not considered as a valuable source of knowledge about the national character and way of thinking. JKM in this approach is secondary in relation to the postulated features of the national mentality and should only confirm them.
As a source of knowledge about the national character and mentality. With this approach, JKM is a database, based on the study of which it is only possible to draw conclusions about the features of the national worldview. In this case, JKM acquires epistemological value.

“The task of finding in this or that language the traits a priori attributed to the corresponding national character is hopeless and of little interest. Anna Vezhbitskaya in her book "Setmantics, Culture and Cognition" ... opens up such an approach to the problem of the connection between language and national character, in which ... it is proposed to identify the properties of the national character, subtracting them from the national-specific in the respective languages . Thus, information about the national character turns out to be the result of linguistic analysis, and not its initial premise” (Paducheva, 1996, p. 21).

Does this mean that the principle of using JCM as an illustrative material has no right to exist? It seems not. It's just a matter of WHAT to illustrate. If in JCM they try to find confirmation of what is only attributed to this or that people, which is only a STEREOTYPE of perception of one nation by another, and not a proven fact, then such use of JCM is ineffective. If, however, any data about the national character is not just a myth and stereotype of perception, but the result of an objective scientific study, then such facts can be considered generally accepted and additional confirmation should be sought in the JKM.

We consider both approaches acceptable, the choice of each of which is determined by the specific object of study and its goals, however, the second approach is still much more interesting, since it makes it possible to obtain new knowledge and guarantees greater objectivity, since it is based on the principle "from particular to general" and rejects supposedly a priori knowledge of the subject.

In this regard, the so-called principle of "presumption of misunderstanding" or, as one might say, "presumption of ignorance" seems to be very interesting and productive. It is better to assume that you do not know anything about the object under study, and obtain new objective knowledge about it, than to fit the facts to the existing stereotype (which does not always adequately reflect reality). This principle was very figuratively and emotionally formulated and expounded by Georgy Gachev: “... If I come to another country or get acquainted with a new person or idea, I believe in advance that here I will meet the same thing that I already know, but with some nuances - I am too complacent and, of course, my brain is lazy and self-satisfied and give me the usual scheme of the world ... But if I enter with a trembling expectation to meet the unknown, I paralyze my usual schemes, I will try to turn my mind into TABULA RASA, so that a new world there he wrote his letters without hindrance, ... then there is more guarantee that I will comprehend the local way of life and thoughts. Saying to himself: “I don’t understand”, the scientist always achieves deeper knowledge as a result of his work than saying to himself: “I understand”... The presumption of incomprehension is accepted ... as a working hypothesis useful for the effectiveness of the study. And it not only does not put up barriers to real understanding... but aims to expand this understanding so that it is more conscious” (Gachev, 1988, p. 45-46). For culturology, such an abstract formation (construct) as JKM is extremely necessary, since it is nothing but a VERBALIZED SYSTEM of "MATRICs" in which the national way of seeing the world is imprinted, forming and predetermining the national character. Without knowledge of this system of "matrices" of national consciousness, it is difficult to understand much of what constitutes national culture, in particular: ethical, moral and value priorities, the system of imagery, the system of associative thinking, etc.

Knowledge of YKM of another language is a necessary foundation, a basis for any cultural research. Immersing yourself in the study of a foreign cultural context without knowing the initial set of “matrices” of the national worldview, verbalized and systematized in the LCM of the corresponding language, is the same as trying to read words and sentences in an unfamiliar language without bothering to first learn the alphabet of this language.

For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that in actual culturological research, another, broader and less specific concept is used much more widely - NATIONAL IMAGE OF THE WORLD, understood precisely as a national worldview. How do these two concepts relate to each other: JKM and NOM? It seems that from this point of view, i.e., in relation to this particular opposition, JKM can be defined as a “cast” of this national image of the world, as embodied in words, socially inherited (i.e., transmitted from generation to generation), as the most important factor that predetermines and guarantees the reproduction in a relatively unchanged form of the national image of the world in the minds of successive generations of representatives of a given nationality, bearers of a given culture. A reservation about the RELATIVE immutability of the national image of the world, nevertheless, I think, is necessary, since it is impossible to deny the constant development, the constant drift of both the national consciousness and the national language that reflects this consciousness.

1. The concept of the language picture of the world

When considering the problem of the role of language in the formation of a picture of the world in the mind of a person, first of all, it is necessary to determine the very original concept of "world picture". The phenomenon called "picture of the world" is as ancient as man himself. The creation of the first "pictures of the world" in man coincides in time with the process of anthropogenesis. Nevertheless, the reality called by the term "picture of the world" has become the subject of scientific and philosophical consideration only recently.

The term "picture of the world" was put forward in the framework of physics in the late XIX - early XX century. One of the first to use this term was W. Hertz in relation to the physical world. V. Hertz interpreted this concept as a set of internal images of external objects that reflect the essential properties of objects, including a minimum of empty, superfluous relations, although they cannot be completely avoided, since images are created by the mind (Hertz; 83). The internal images, or symbols, of external objects created by researchers, according to Hertz, should be such that "the logically necessary consequences of these representations, in turn, were images of the naturally necessary consequences of the displayed objects"

The most adequate understanding of the picture of the world is its definition as initial global image of the world , underlying human worldview , representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and being the result of all human spiritual activity[Russell 1997: 143]. With such an interpretation, the picture of the world appears as a subjective image of objective reality and, therefore, enters the class of the ideal, which, without ceasing to be an image of reality, is objectified in sign forms, without being fully imprinted in any of them.

Possible associations often give grounds to mean by the expression "picture of the world" one or another representation of a person about any phenomena of life that he has formed as a result of his life experience. Such an understanding of the expression "picture of the world" cannot be attributed to strictly scientific, it can rather be one of the countless everyday expressions that reflect the individual understanding, ideas of this or that person about any phenomenon of nature, circumstances, conditions, aesthetic values. (xer) The concept of a picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts that express the specifics of human existence, its relationship with the world, the most important conditions for its existence in the world. The picture of the world is a holistic image of the world, which is the result of all human activity. It arises in a person in the course of all his contacts and interactions with the outside world. It can be everyday contacts with the world, and subject-practical activity of a person.

Since all aspects of a person’s mental activity take part in the formation of a picture of the world, starting with sensations, perceptions, ideas and ending with a person’s thinking, it is very difficult to talk about any one process associated with the formation of a person’s picture of the world. Man contemplates the world, comprehends it, feels, cognizes, reflects. As a result of these processes, a person has an image of the world, or worldview.

Each of the pictures of the world, which as a displayed fragment of the world represents the language as a special phenomenon, sets its own vision of the language and in its own way determines the principle of the language. The study and comparison of different visions of the language through the prisms of different pictures of the world can offer linguistics new ways to penetrate into the nature of the language and its knowledge.

The linguistic or naive picture of the world is also commonly interpreted as a reflection of everyday, philistine ideas about the world. The idea of a naive model of the world is as follows: every natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving the world, which is imposed as a must on all native speakers. Yu. D. Apresyan calls the linguistic picture of the world naive in the sense that scientific definitions and linguistic interpretations do not always coincide in volume and even content (Apresyan; 357). The conceptual picture of the world or the “model” of the world, unlike the linguistic one, is constantly changing, reflecting the results of cognitive and social activity, but individual fragments of the linguistic picture of the world retain for a long time the surviving, relic ideas of people about the universe.

The question of conceptualizing the world in language with the help of words is very important. At one time, R. Lado, one of the founders of contrastive linguistics, noted: “There is an illusion, which is sometimes characteristic even of educated people, that the meanings are the same in all languages and languages differ only in the form of expression of these meanings. In fact, the meanings in which our experience is classified are culturally determined, so that they vary significantly from culture to culture” (Lado; 34-35). Not only the meanings vary, but also the composition of the vocabulary. The specificity of this variation constitutes an essential part of the specificity of linguistic pictures of the world.

As noted above, the perception of the surrounding world partly depends on the cultural and national characteristics of the speakers of a particular language. Therefore, from the point of view of ethnology, linguoculturology and other related areas, the most interesting thing is to establish the causes of discrepancies in the linguistic pictures of the world, and these discrepancies do exist. The solution of such a question is going beyond the limits of linguistics and deepening into the secrets of the knowledge of the world by other peoples. There are many reasons for such discrepancies, but only a few of them seem to be visible, and therefore - the main ones. There are three main factors or causes of language differences: nature, culture, knowledge. Let's consider these factors.

The first factor is nature. Nature is, first of all, the external conditions of people's lives, which are reflected in different ways in languages. A person gives names to those animals, localities, plants that are known to him, to the state of nature that he feels. Natural conditions dictate to the linguistic consciousness of a person the features of perception, even such phenomena as the perception of color. The designation of color varieties is often motivated by semantic features of the visual perception of objects of the surrounding nature. A particular natural object is associated with one or another color. Different linguistic cultures have their own associations associated with color designations, which coincide in some ways, but also differ from each other in some ways (Apresyan; 351).

It is the nature in which a person exists that initially forms in the language of his world of associative representations, which are reflected in the language by metaphorical transfers of meanings, comparisons, connotations.

The second factor is culture. “Culture is something that a person did not receive from the natural world, but brought, made, created himself” (Manakin; 51). The results of material and spiritual activity, socio-historical, aesthetic, moral and other norms and values that distinguish different generations and social communities are embodied in various conceptual and linguistic ideas about the world. Any feature of the cultural sphere is fixed in the language. Also, linguistic differences can be determined by national rites, customs, rituals, folklore and mythological representations, symbols. Cultural models, conceptualized in certain names, spread throughout the world and become known even to those who are not familiar with the culture of a particular people. A lot of special works and studies have recently been devoted to this problem.

As for the third factor - knowledge, it should be said that rational, sensual and spiritual ways of world perception distinguish each person. Ways of understanding the world are not identical for different people and different peoples. This is evidenced by the differences in the results of cognitive activity, which find their expression in the specifics of linguistic representations and features of the linguistic consciousness of different peoples. An important indicator of the influence of cognition on language differences is what W. Humboldt called "different ways of seeing objects." In the middle of the 20th century, the linguist and philosopher L. Wittgenstein wrote: “Of course, there are certain ways of seeing, there are cases when the one who sees the model in this way, as a rule, applies it in this way, and the one who sees him differently, and treats him differently” (Wittgenstein, 114). The most vivid way of seeing objects is manifested in the specifics of motivation and in the internal form of names.

Exploring the cognitive foundations of the language nomination, E. S. Kubryakova rightly speaks of the linguistic picture of the world as a structure of knowledge about the world, thereby additionally emphasizing the cognitive nature of this mental entity. “A cognitively oriented study of derivational processes allows us to clarify not only the specifics of the “mapping” of the world in a single language, but also, with the proper generalization of such data in a typological plan, contribute to the derivation of some general provisions about a person’s understanding of the main existential categories, features of the universe, patterns of the structure of the world , both in the physical aspect of human existence, and in its social organization and in the whole system of human values \u200b\u200band its values and moral, moral and ethical assessments peculiar to man ”(Kubryakova; 336-337).

V.A. Pishchalnikova

The enduring relevance of the problem of the relationship between objective reality, language and thinking at the next stage in the development of science again emphasized the “human factor”, which involves the study of linguistic phenomena in close connection with a person, his thinking and various types of spiritual and practical activities.

It was the emphasis on the “human factor” that led to the emergence in various sciences of a number of concepts that represent mental, linguistic, logical, philosophical models of the objective world: a conceptual picture of the world, a picture of the world, an image of the world, a model of the world, a conceptual system, an individual cognitive system, a language picture peace, etc. The terminological situation is such that it seems very useful to follow the advice of V.P. Zinchenko: “Perhaps, a new syncretism should become the ideal of modern knowledge... For this, it is useful to return to the state of methodological innocence, to think about what kind of ontology lies behind our, as it seems to us, refined concepts” (7,.57).

With all the external differences in the definitions of the above concepts, they are united by a philosophical orientation towards the presentation of models as a subjective image of the objective world, as an “initial global image”, as a “reduced and simplified display”, etc. In this way, the models are brought under the traditional understanding of the ideal. In addition, with rare exceptions, the definitions distinguish two components as obligatory: worldview (vision of the world, the sum of ideas about the world, knowledge about the world, reflecting the ability to think, etc.) and the activity nature of the picture of the world (cognitive human activity, spiritual activity, human experience, etc.)

The concept of “worldview” was declared by the linguo-philosophical concepts of the V. of humanity”, which contains the idea of the four hypostases of von Humboldt, J.L. Weisgerber, L. Wittgenstein, E. Sapir - B. Whorf, etc. language as an “intermediate world” between thinking and reality, while language fixes a special national worldview. Already W. von Humboldt emphasized the difference between the concepts of “intermediate world” and “picture of the world”. The first is a static product of linguistic activity, which determines the perception of reality by a person; its unit is a “spiritual object” – a concept. The picture of the world is a mobile, dynamic entity, since it is formed from linguistic interventions in reality; its unit is the speech act. As we can see, language plays a huge role in the formation of both concepts: “Language is an organ that forms a thought, therefore, in the formation of a human personality, in the formation of a system of concepts in it, in appropriating the experience accumulated by generations, language plays a leading role” (5.78) . J.L. Weisgerber tried to embody the philosophical ideas of W. von Humboldt and J.G. Herder in the concept of language, where the views of E. Cassirer, Fr. Mautner, E. Husserl, F. De Saussure. The main idea of Y.L. Weisgerber - “the language law of language: 1) actualized language (speech as a mental process and a physical phenomenon); 2) “language organism” (language as the basis of individual speech activity); 3) language as an objective social formation; 4) language ability. J.L. Weisgerber explores the transpersonal level of language of the second, third and fourth levels of the "Language Law". Thus, the scientist outlines the distinction between meaning as a social entity and meaning as an individual phenomenon, although only the social (“transpersonal”) level of language is declared as the object of research. Between man and reality, according to Weisgerber, there is a “mediating world of thought” and a language that contains a certain idea of the world. “The native language creates the basis for communication in the form of developing a way of thinking similar to all its speakers. Moreover, both the idea of the world and the way of thinking are the results of a constantly ongoing process in the language. world-creation, knowledge of the world by specific means of a given language in a given language community (2, 111-112). The perception of the world is carried out by thinking, but with the participation of the means of the native language. Weisgerber's way of reflecting reality is idioethnic in nature and corresponds to the static side of the language. In fact, the scientist emphasizes the intersubjective part of the individual's thinking. “There is no doubt that many of the views and ways of behavior and attitudes that have taken root in us turn out to be “learned”, i.e. socially conditioned as soon as we trace the scope of their manifestation throughout the world” (Weisgerber, p. 117).

Language as an activity is also considered in the philosophical concept of L. Wittgenstein. In his opinion, thinking has a speech character and is essentially an activity with signs. The philosopher is sure that the whole classical philosophy on the problem of sign thinking only confused what is quite clear: as if in order to communicate life to the dead signs, something non-material must simply be added” (3, 204). In contrast to this assertion, Wittgenstein puts forward another proposition: the sign gives life to its use. At the same time, “the meaning that is inherent in words is not a product of our thinking” (3.117), the meaning of a sign is its application in accordance with the rules of a given language and the characteristics of a particular activity, situation, context. Therefore, one of the most important questions for Wittgenstein is the relationship between the grammatical structure of the language, the structure of thinking and the structure of the displayed situation. A sentence is a model of reality that copies its structure with its logical-syntactic form. Hence: to what extent a person speaks the language, to that extent he knows the world. A linguistic unit does not represent a certain linguistic meaning, but a concept, therefore Wittgenstein does not distinguish between a linguistic picture of the world and a picture of the world as a whole.

It is L. Wittgenstein who is credited with a special role in introducing the term “picture of the world” as a model of reality into scientific use, while it is important that Wingenstein was fully aware of the metaphorical nature of this term and emphasized its synonymy with the psychological concept of “image of the world”.

A solid contribution to the distinction between concepts picture of the world and language picture of the world introduced by E. Sapir and B. Whorf, who argued that “the idea that a person is oriented in the outside world, essentially without the help of language, and that language is just an accidental means of solving specific problems of thinking and communication, is just an illusion . In fact, the “real world” is largely unconsciously built on the basis of the language habits of one or another social group” (11, 261). Using the combination “real world”, E. Sapir means “intermediate world”, including language with all its connections with thinking, psyche, culture, social and professional phenomena. That is why E. Sapir argues that “it becomes difficult for a modern linguist to limit himself to his traditional subject ... he cannot help but share the mutual interests that connect linguistics with anthropology and cultural history, with sociology, psychology, philosophy and, in a longer perspective, with physiology and physics” (11, 260-261). Emphasizing that "language has the power to divide experience into theoretically dissociable elements and to carry out a gradual transition of potential values into real ones, which allows human beings to transcend the limits of this immediate individual experience and join a more generally accepted understanding of the world around" (11, 226), E. Sapir contrasts "potential" and "real" meanings. As we can see, different naming of the concepts of the model of the world is not associated with a change in the view of the relationship between thinking, reality and language, but is determined by the volume of the concept and the ratio of the world picture and the language picture of the world determined by this volume. It seems, therefore, that such a position is quite fair, which pairs the content of language and thinking in a single model: “Language is initially connected directly with thinking, and in the epistemological plan, the relation is really not “language - thinking - world”, but “linguistic thinking - world”. Therefore, it is also correct to speak not about the linguistic picture of the world, but about the linguistic picture of the world, i.e. about the conceptual picture of the world (9, 37).

The problem of the "intermediate world" in modern domestic science has been transformed into a study of the category of "mentality". It is important that many researchers strongly emphasize the discrepancy between the concepts of mentality and social consciousness, noting that mentality describes precisely the specifics of the reflection of the external world, which determines the ways in which a fairly large community of people react. (A.V. Petrovsky). At the same time, the mentality is also defined as a set of views, ideas, “feelings” of the community of people of a certain era, geographical area and social environment, a special psychological structure of society that influences historical and social processes, which in principle coincides with the definition of mass consciousness. The latter definition is becoming less and less popular in domestic science also because for a long time the content of the category “public consciousness” was, in fact, equated with ideology. The ideologization of human thinking is perceived as “the replacement of the formation of individual consciousness by the formation of the collective unconscious with all the clichés, standards, axioms, taboos, etc. inherent in the latter.” (7, 54). V. Havel argued that “ideology as an illusory way of finding one’s place in the world, giving a person the appearance that he is an independent, worthy and moral person, thereby giving him the opportunity not to be such, ideology as a dummy of some “public” and not values associated with selfish motives, which allows a person to deceive his conscience, hide from others and from himself his true position and his inglorious modus vivendi ... this is a veil behind which a person can conveniently hide his decay ... ”(4, 106). (Hence, according to M.K. Mamardashvili, there is a danger of an anthropological catastrophe). According to V.P. Zinchenko, the consciousness of the representatives of our society has ceased to be cultural and historical, because the links between consciousness and activity, consciousness and personality have been destroyed. If it persisted, it ceased be involved in life, broke out of a single continuum of being-consciousness, turned into something irrational…” (7, 128). (Italics mine. - V.P.).

It is the well-known discrediting of the category “public consciousness” that leads to the fact that the psychological interpretation of the concept of mentality is more often outlined as “some specific culture (subculture) characteristic of the mental life of people representing this culture (subculture), determined by the economic and political conditions of life in the historical aspect” (6, 21). And then the concept of mentality is practically synonymized with the concept of national character. As a result, wanting to be consistent, scientists come to the need to highlight the linguistic mentality, since it is impossible to deny, on the one hand, the influence of language on the categorization of reality, and on the other hand, it is impossible to find in the language the reasons that encourage people to attach importance to some aspects of phenomena and ignore others. . From here, logically, one comes to the traditional opposition of the linguistic picture of the world and the picture of the world.

Meanwhile, it is quite obvious that, developing in society, an individual necessarily appropriates a certain part of the supra-individual complex of universal knowledge. Thus, he joins the world of ideas and concepts that existed before him. Simultaneously, the content of the individual's thinking includes experiential, perceptual knowledge. In addition, the mental activity of the individual, of course, is formed under the influence of the system of collective ideas about the world. But this far from exhausts the nature of the individual's activities. The structure of any knowledge is purely individual. For the individual there is only internalized knowledge. Only in personal experience is social knowledge, which existed before individual, but not for him.

In the logico-linguistic studies of the picture of the world, following V.I. Postovalova is called “the original global image of the world that underlies the human worldview, representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and is the result of all human spiritual activity” (10). It seems that this definition confuses a real object (“the result of all spiritual activity of a person”) and a model of an object (an image of the world). In addition to the picture of the world, a certain worldview is singled out, for which the first is only the basis. What is worldview and what are the foundations of its occurrence - is not clear. If we are talking about a mental category (and by definition it is), then why are we talking about representation, and not about presentation? If the picture of the world absorbs only the essential features of reality, then in what model is the non-essential perceptual and other knowledge of the individual about reality represented? Meanwhile, it is clear that the model called the picture of the world is a subject-object category. It does not mirror the characteristics of objective reality, but with the participation of the associative-apperceptive content of thinking, which internalizes the reality perceived by the individual. In essence, with the analyzed approach to the definition of the concept of a picture of the world, we will not find anything new in comparison with the long and widely known definitions of materialist philosophers.

This feeling is enhanced if we consider the specific, according to V.I. Postovalova, characteristics of the picture of the world: synthetic unity of subjective and objective principles, unity of statics and dynamics, stability and variability. (By the way, it is not clear how the last two pairs of contrasts differ).

IN AND. Postovalova also highlights the criteria for evaluating the picture of the world: its adequacy to the real world, the optimal choice of angle for displaying human life, the harmonious balance between the world and man.

The selected criteria are so obviously unreasoned that they do not need to be seriously criticized. Suffice it to ask: what are the criteria for adequacy and what is the mechanism for establishing this adequacy? And what kind of harmony are we talking about: physical? spiritual? What are the criteria for harmonization, apart from the well-known subjective mental sensation?

OL Kamenskaya operates with the concepts of a conceptual picture of the world and a conceptual system, which are understood as a set of models that structure knowledge about the world. But in addition to knowledge, the individual's thinking also includes his opinion about the real and virtual worlds (8).

A.G. Baranov speaks about an individual cognitive system, which consists of two stages: 1) fixing by cognitive models of stereotypical situations reflecting the subjective experience of an individual, 2) introduction new information, processing, formation of new cognitive structures (operational level). That is, practically an individual cognitive system is a model of stereotyping the accumulated experience by an individual, which cannot cover the entire experience as a whole. Such a model is associated with operational structures that have become automatic, do not require inclusion in activity relations, reflecting stereotypical communicative situations (1). But it is not applicable to any creative activity, including verbal one.

Summarizing the above, we can assume that under the conceptual picture of the world (picture of the world) in linguistics they understand 1) the totality knowledge about the world, which is acquired in human activity, 2) ways and mechanisms of interpretation of new knowledge.

It seems that it would be more accurate to talk about the picture of the world as a model that reflects this body of knowledge and the mechanisms for obtaining and interpreting it. But even with such a clarification, it is not the picture of the world that is the object of linguistic research, but only that part of it that is represented by the units of language - the linguistic picture of the world, even if we are talking about knowledge - a conscious experience, and for its storage there are universal and individual methods and structures. In addition, it should be taken into account that not all knowledge is verbalized. A person understands not what the language allows him, but verbalizes the content of thinking that is subjectively relevant for an individual in a given speech situation. Apparently, the concept of a linguistic picture of the world should include not only stereotypical ways of linguistic representation of thinking, but rather, the fundamental possibility of verbalizing any content of thinking.

It seems that the most complete, reflecting the essential components of the category under consideration, is the definition of the conceptual system given by R.J. Pavilenis: it is “a continuously constructed system of information (opinions and knowledge) that an individual has about the actual or possible world” (9, 280). The definition emphasizes the reflected experience of the individual both at the linguistic and pre-linguistic levels, the language is considered at the same time both as part of the individual's conceptual system and as a means of constructing and symbolically representing the conceptual system. It is also significant that the conceptual system is formed not only as a result of the impact of the so-called objective reality. It is also the result of reflection as a process of independent work of thinking on structuring its content, moreover, a continuous process.

What is there meaning of language expressions with such an understanding of the conceptual system? This is the possibility of constructing the structure of concepts in the basic conceptual system, this is the possibility of interpreting a linguistic expression by the content of the perceiver's conceptual system.

This is the understanding of the conceptual system given by the logician R.J. Pavilenis, we put it as the basis for the psycholinguistic definition of the category under study. We fully share the view that linguistic expressions in themselves have no meaning. Their content is determined only by the content of the conceptual system. Our verbal ability is based on the ability to perceive objects and states of the world. There is not and cannot be a problem of understanding language/speech outside the problem of understanding the world.

The content of a certain speech work for the recipient is a certain set of meanings updated this text in the mind of the individual. Consequently, the linguistic unit, actualizing all the mental content associated with it in the experience of the recipient, allows the recipient to appropriate the speech work (to understand it). That is language sign practically excites in the mind of the recipient meaning-making process.(In passing, we note that such a position allows us to consider the openness of the language system not so much as a fundamental possibility of introducing new substantive elements into the language, but as an opportunity to designate an almost infinite number of meanings by the existing elements). Therefore, no verbal work exhausts the semantic content associated with it. On the other hand, the role of language in the processes of meaning generation is revealed at least in three ways: language is a means coding of meanings by the bodies of signs, with the help of manipulating language units, manipulation of meanings language is a means of social communication and reflection. Language objectifies the content of conceptual systems. From here it is possible to determine the conceptual system (picture of the world) as a continuum system of meanings, structured in the activity of the individual as a result of the assignment of conventional experience, perceptual processes and proper reflection of thinking We prefer to use the term conceptual system rather than worldview, since the former simultaneously gives an idea of the unit of this formation - the concept (meaning), thereby emphasizing one of the most important properties of the analyzed category - continuity, which arises as a result of the constant formation of new concepts not only for by expanding / deepening experience, but also by constantly restructuring the existing content.

The above definition of the conceptual system does not exclude the presence of national character concepts in its structure, since each ethnic group has its own system of objective meanings, social stereotypes, and cognitive schemes. Human thinking is always ethnically conditioned. Therefore, the understanding of a speech work depends not only on the verbal, but also on the historical, social, cultural and other contexts of the speech work, which together form a cultural niche.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Baranov A.G. Functional-pragmatic concept of the text. Rostov-on-Don, 1993.

2. Weisgerber Y.L. Language and philosophy.//Problems of linguistics, 1993. No. 2.

3. Wingenstein L. Philosophical works: Part 1. M., 1994.

4. Havel V. The power of the powerless. // Daugava, 1990. No. 7.

5. Humboldt V.fon. Selected works on linguistics. M., 1984.

6. Dubov I.G. The phenomenon of mentality: psychological analysis // Questions of psychology. 1993. No. 5.

7. Zinchenko V.P. Problems of developmental psychology. (Reading O. Mandelstam) // Questions of Psychology. 1992. No. 3-4.

8. Kamenskaya O.L. Text and communication. M., 1990.

9. Pavilenis R.J. The problem of meaning. Logical-functional analysis of the language. M., 1983.

10. The role of the human factor in the language. Language and picture of the world. M., 1988.

11. Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M., 1993.