home Heating radiators Ideas about the linguistic picture of the world. Language pictures of the world

Ideas about the linguistic picture of the world. Language pictures of the world

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, recorded in language, manifests itself.
Language is the most important way of forming human knowledge about the world. By reflecting the objective world in the process of activity, a person records the results of cognition in words. The totality of this knowledge, captured in linguistic form, represents 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 in the form of a system of images that contain the surrounding reality.
The picture of the world can be presented using spatial, temporal, quantitative, ethnic and other parameters. Its formation is greatly influenced by traditions, language, nature, upbringing, education and many social factors.

The uniqueness of national experience determines the peculiarities of the worldview of different peoples. Due to the specifics of 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 linguistic 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, a set of ideas about the world that has historically developed in the everyday consciousness of a given linguistic community and reflected in language, 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 the 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 linguistic relativity hypothesis Sapir-Whorf, on the other.

Modern ideas about the linguistic picture of the world as presented by academician. Yu.D. 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 two named components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systematic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a certain language, a reconstruction of an integral system of ideas reflected in a given language is carried out, 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, individual concepts characteristic of a given language (= language-specific) are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they provide a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages: translation equivalent or absent altogether (as, for example, for Russian words yearning , tear , maybe , prowess , will , restless , sincerity ,ashamed ,it's a shame ,uncomfortable), or such an equivalent exists in principle, but it does not contain precisely those components of meaning that are specific to a given word (such as, for example, Russian words soul , fate , happiness , justice , vulgarity , parting , resentment , a pity , morning , going to , get ,as if). In recent years, a direction has been developing in domestic semantics that integrates both approaches; its goal is to reconstruct the Russian linguistic picture of the world on the basis of a comprehensive (linguistic, cultural, semiotic) analysis of linguistic-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, etc.).

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

Formulation of the problem. The linguistic picture of the world has become in recent years one of the most “fashionable” topics in Russian linguistics. And at the same time, as often happens with widely used designations, there is still no clear enough idea of what exactly the meaning of this concept is given by writers and how, in fact, it should be interpreted by readers?

One can, of course, argue 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 researchers who would begin their work in the field of, 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” more than once during the course of their 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, when classifying the concept of “linguistic picture of the world” among such initial concepts of linguistics as “language”, “speech”, “word” and the like, one essential circumstance should be kept in mind. All of the listed concepts can be used as, to a certain extent, “self-evident”, 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 your own definition of such a concept, but simply refer to one of its authoritative definitions.

Some indifference or, if you like, composure of linguists to this side of the issue should 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, albeit a successful, but still a metaphor, and giving 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 keen interest of linguists in problems one way or another associated with the picture of the world indicates that this expression denotes something related to the basics, defining the essence of language, or rather, perceived as defining its essence “now”, i.e. that is, at the present stage of development of the science of language (it is possible, however, that “here”, that is, in the science of the “Western” area in the broad sense of the word).

The fact that a certain new archetype is gradually (and to a certain extent unconsciously) entering the consciousness of linguists, predetermining the direction of the entire set of linguistic studies, seems quite obvious. One can, paraphrasing the title of one of Martin Heidegger’s articles, say that for the science of language the “time of a linguistic picture of the world” has come. And if we further specify the characteristics of the moment, 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.

M. Heidegger's position. The expression “linguistic picture of the world” suggests that there may be other ways of picturing it, and all these methods are based on the very possibility of representing the world as a picture. “Imagine the world as a picture” - what does this actually 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 World Picture,” published for the first time in 1950. This article was based on the report “Substantiation of the New European Picture of the World by Metaphysics,” read by the philosopher back in 1938. Heidegger’s thoughts expressed in this report, were significantly ahead of subsequent discussions in scientific studies about the essence of the general scientific picture of the world and have not lost any of their significance in our time.

According to Heidegger, in the expression “picture of the world,” the world appears “as a designation of existence as a whole.” Moreover, this name “is not limited to 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 relationship to the world is thought.”

A 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 beings as a whole are approached as something that a person aims at and that he therefore accordingly wants to present to himself, to have in front of himself and thereby in a decisive sense to present to himself”, and to present it in everything that is inherent in it and constitutes it as a system.

Asking the question whether each era of history has its own picture of the world and is each time concerned with constructing its own picture of the world, Heidegger answers it in the negative. The picture of the world is possible only where and when the existence of beings is “searched for and found in the representation of beings.” Since such an interpretation of existence is impossible, neither for the Middle Ages, nor for antiquity, it is also impossible to talk about the medieval and ancient picture of the world. The transformation of the world into a picture is a distinctive feature of the New Age, the 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 a being 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 characteristic of the New Age, the transformation of the science of the world into the science of man, that is, into anthropology, understood as such a philosophical interpretation of man, “when existing things as a whole is interpreted and assessed from the individual and by the individual." Connected with this is the emergence of the word “worldview” from 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 point of reference.”

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

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

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

The phenomenon called the “picture of the world” is as ancient as man himself. Creation of per-

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

called the term “picture of the world”, became the subject of scientific and philosophical consideration only in

a long time ago.

There is an urgent need to advance the concept of “picture of the world” in various spheres of human

activity usually arises in two cases: if it is necessary to comprehend the situation of irrigation

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

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

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

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

original global

ballroom image of the world , , representing essentials

properties of the world in the understanding of its carriers and which is the result of all 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.

tive reality and is therefore included in the class of ideal, which, without ceasing to be an image

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

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

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

and formal. Let us first consider the meaningful (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 represents 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 picture

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

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

It is the core of a person’s worldview and carries its basic properties.

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

centrality (it is a global image of the world) with simultaneous anthropomorphism (it is not

contains 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 at the same time a semi-conscious nature.

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 not considered by its bearers as a picture and is not realized

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

is seen 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 specific historicity of appearance is the essence of

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

In human life, the picture of the world must combine both stability and dynamism. 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 being 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 adjusted, supplemented, and clarified as experience and knowledge accumulate.

a specific individual and society as a whole.

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

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

infinite. Communication between a finite person and an infinite world results in the development

an image of the world that combines both of these features. As humanity moves historically, the image

the world is becoming more and more defined in many features.

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

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

degrees are determined by this circumstance.

In order to realistically depict the existing global when localizing means, the subject of the picture

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

In all its details, the picture of the world is always an unfinished image, not complete

sketch drawn to completion. The picture must have gaps. The presence of gaps in the picture is not a defect

This is a peculiarity of the picture of the world, but a consequence of the characteristics of the world and man. The world is endless and mysterious to people

human, and man is finite and limited in his cognitive capabilities.

Although the picture of the world tends to be a panoramic representation of reality, broad and multi-

dimensionality, it must have its own limit of complexity, its own permissible limit of detail in in-

dividualized representation of what is depicted in the consciousness of a person, in which there can be

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 language. In this case, it is obviously assumed that a person reflects

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

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, completely and

fully. Understanding the world around us is always a process, sometimes quite lengthy. Structure

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

the ideal form of the object in all its complexity.

Another feature of the cognition process is that the results of a person’s cognition of the surrounding

of the pressing 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 the 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 linguistic signs and

symbolic structures have developed universal meanings. This means that some commonalities in the language

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

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

its comprehensive description. It rather plays the role of a pathogen. It arouses in the interlocutor a certain sum of the most general differential features that make it possible to have a conversation.

Nick to identify the subject in question.

Designation as a form of the relationship of a word to reality appears in a specific form, in

name form. The sound side of a word is that material, sensually perceived basis

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

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

Only the human is capable of reflecting the phenomena of the surrounding world and their natural connections.

brain. The results of his cognitive work are consolidated in concepts. The sound complex itself

doesn't reflect anything.

The sound complex is pronounced with the aim that the listener recognizes the indicated

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

that to achieve this goal 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 recognizes the object by some minimum of differential features. However, he

I could never understand anything if the sound complex had no meaning. The meaning that is all

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

signs [Gorsky 1997: 226 – 227].

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

nomination on any basis is a purely technical linguistic device. The feature chosen for the name (creating the sound shell of the word) does not exhaust the entire essence

of an object, does not reveal all its features.

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

knowledge about various objects and reveal their essence. But describing the process itself is very difficult and

technically not feasible.

Compared to language, thinking is, as a rule, richer in content and more flexible. Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

human linguistic behavior" the linguocultural aspect of the process of formation is considered

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

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

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

There are complex relationships between this reflection. The picture of the world can be represented using

spatial ( top bottom , right left , east – west , distant - close), temporary ( day -

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

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

The linguistic picture of the world does not stand alongside special pictures of the world (chemical, physical

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

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

and national. The latter determines the specific features of the language at all its levels. IN

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

the prism through which a person sees the world.

of a given 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 world level

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

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

It is also necessary to take into account the universal properties of linguistic units.

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

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

and culture is one of the central ones in linguistics.

Language and culture are interconnected: 1) in communication processes; 2) in ontogenesis (formation

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

These two entities differ in the following: 1) in language as a phenomenon, the dominant attitude towards mass

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

(like a language), but it is not capable of self-organization; 3) language and culture are different semiotics

Chinese systems [Losev 1992: 426 – 429]. These considerations allow us to conclude that culture is not

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

The picture presented by the relationship between language and culture is extremely complex and multifaceted.

pektna. The relationship between language and culture can be considered as a relationship of part and whole.

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

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. separately from culture, what is done in traditional

no linguistics.

As you know, culture is created and lived in by a person, an individual. It is in personality to the fore

the social nature of man emerges from the plan, and man himself appears as a result as a subject of social

cultural life.

The personality should be considered from the perspective of the cultural tradition of the people, ethnic group, because for

the birth of a person in a person, a cultural-anthropological prototype is needed, which is formed

within the framework of 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 linguistic

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

nal character and are realized in the process of linguistic dialogue communication;

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

increasing interest in language. Involving facts of the culture of the target language related to the rules

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

effective influence on the communication partner;

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

gradov 1996].

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

essentially in vocabulary and syntax) the basic national-cultural prototype of the carrier defines

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

A person appears in two forms - man and 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 the concepts of biological sex and social sex (gender) arose only

during the period of postmodernism.

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

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

everlasting activity[Pushkareva 1999: 147].

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

la was also adopted in linguistics, proving fruitful for pragmatics and anthropocentric

descriptions in general. Gender factor, taking into account a person’s natural sex and his social

consequences", is one of the essential characteristics of the individual and throughout his life

in a certain way influences her awareness of her identity, as well as the identification of the speaker

a common subject by other members of society.

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

on the one hand, to mental constructs, or models, developed for the purpose of clearer

a scientific description of the problems of sex and the delimitation of its biological and sociocultural functions. From other

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

by means of language.

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

of which are the 60s of the last century:

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

theories based mainly on observations of isolated facts;

2) gender research itself – large-scale research going on since the 60s

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

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

women's roles in society, which allowed us 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

on conceptual guidelines, research methods and the nature of the material being studied:

1 Sociolinguistic gender studies.

2 Feminist linguistics.

3 Actually gender studies, studying both sexes.

4 Research on Masculinity ( men's studies) is the newest direction that arose at the beginning

le 90s last century

5 Psycholinguistic study of gender, which has recently merged with neurolinguistics.

This also includes the biodeterministic direction, based on the natural predetermination of cognitive

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

and research into children's speech.

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

crops

The following groups of problems are studied from different angles by these directions:

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

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

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. This could be like researching one language,

and comparative works.

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

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

fika of male and female speaking. In this area, in turn, several con-

conceptual approaches, primarily the theory of sociocultural determinism and the theory of biodeterministic

It should be noted that _______the named directions did not replace each other, but “grew” one from another -

go, 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 form 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 linguistic picture of the world.

The mechanism for the formation of a linguistic picture of the world is as follows: in acts of thinking, information about the surrounding world is processed. A more or less holistic 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 devoted to 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 stand out from the position of man and his interests, is isomorphic to the world in which it has its own empirical correlates, their essential features are not questioned, serve as an eternal regulator of human life, orienting a person towards a certain attitude towards the world, evoking in him corresponding expectations about the world and forming behavioral stereotypes in the communicative space of human communication.”

Based on the above, 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 importance of knowledge embodied in 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 conceptual and linguistic systems is best studied by studying this activity itself and establishing in the process of such analysis the direction of nominative activity towards designation well-defined fragments of the world, and real means and techniques of nomination, and the national and cultural flavor of what is happening.

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

IN AND. Postovalova argues that the image of the world captured in 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 pre-scientific in nature.

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

The idea of the existence of nationally specific linguistic pictures of the world originated in German philology of 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, subordinates and organizes the perception of the world by its speakers. And secondly, that language - a system of pure meanings - forms its own world, as if pasted onto the real world.

First of all, national features of the worldview are subject to linguistic conceptualization. Because The formation of personality takes place in a certain sociocultural space; the linguistic picture of the world of a given society is also nationally determined.

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 part of the cultural (conceptual) picture, albeit the most essential one. However, the linguistic picture is poorer than the cultural one, since the creation of the latter involves, along with linguistic activity, other types of mental activity, and also due to the fact that the sign is always imprecise 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 man and his physical experience of perceiving the world around him: “The most adequate understanding of the picture of the world is its definition as the initial global image of the world that underlies a person’s worldview, 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 unlawful 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 relationship between 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. The moral sphere as an object and result of linguistic conceptualization: linguocultural and cognitive aspects: Abstract of thesis. dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Stavropol, 2007.

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

5. Human factor in language. Rep. ed. E. S. Kubryakova. M., 1988.

Rus-Bryushinina Ines Valentina

Kuban State Technological University, Preparatory Faculty for Foreign Citizens, Art. Rev. Department of Humanities and Sports.

Rus-Suniga Vera Alexandrovna

Kuban State Technological University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, senior lecturer of the Russian language department.

§1.1. The cultural imperative of introducing into scientific use the concept of “linguistic picture of the world”

The emergence of the very concept of “linguistic picture of the world” is due, as we see it, 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 use. For now, 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, YQM later received many interpretations, each of which emphasized individual aspects of the designated concept, but none of them could claim to be a generally accepted and comprehensive definition that could transfer the concept of YQM into the category of scientific concepts. , and the expression itself is classified as a term.

To transfer the phrase “linguistic picture of the world” from the category of figurative expressions, from the category of an albeit bright but rather amorphous designation, which at the will of the user can be filled with very arbitrary content, into the category of terms - this 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 and reasons for the appearance of this abstract concept. Who and why had the desire (or need) to operate with such an unusual abstract category? Let us clarify that we do not just mean the concept of “picture of the world” or “scientific picture of the world,” which we talked about in the previous chapter, but specifically the “linguistic picture of the world.” This clarification is of fundamental nature for us, since in many works these concepts are not differentiated, are mixed, and often replace each other, which, in our opinion, is completely unacceptable and is a serious mistake. We propose to distinguish two imperatives for introducing the concept of YCM into scientific use: CULTURAL 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 us dwell in some detail on each of the above imperatives.

Acquaintance with any culture and its study will always be incomplete and, in a sense, even superficial, if in the field of view of the person who turns to this culture there is no such fundamental component as the mindset of the nation, the national logic of world perception and worldview. “...With what “grid of coordinates” does a given people grasp 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 a given people appears is what constitutes the national image of the world” (Gachev, 1988, p. 44).

The emotional words of the famous culturologist and philologist clearly express the need to find SOMETHING that would allow a person belonging to another culture to look at the world from a different “point of view.” “...People... come across some kind of limit to the pony mania. The same words and formulas are pronounced, but very different things are thought under them - and the main problem is that they are often unaware of this. In order for the imaginary mutual understanding to be as close as possible to the real one, it is necessary to make allowances 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 this depend on? Here's the rub. If we could somehow clarify this issue, we would have at our disposal a certain “coefficient” that would facilitate contacts between peoples and cultures” (Gachev, 1988, pp. 44-45).

Such a “grid of coordinates that captures the world”, a kind of “glasses” through which representatives of a given culture look at the world and thanks to which they see in this world only THAT and only THAT way, like other bearers of the same “glasses”, of course, is national mindset, which is recorded in the national language of representatives of a given culture. Whether language is only a reflection of national thinking or whether it itself determines it is a separate topic, which we will address in the appropriate section. In the meantime, it is important for us to trace the chain: the dissimilarity of cultures >) awareness of this dissimilarity -»-> attempts to find a “coefficient of understanding” of another culture ->-> “coefficient of understanding” = a special mindset of national thinking >) reflection and fixation of the mindset of national thinking in language . Hence the logical conclusion, which has become almost a commonplace in discussions on this topic, is about the inextricable connection between the culture of a 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 only be done by learning the language spoken by representatives of a given cultural society. At the same time, in the expression “learn a language” we put a slightly different meaning from the traditional one: we do not mean the ability to solve certain communicative problems with the help of this language, but a deep penetration into the plan of what is signified by 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 vocabulary, as a rule, does not at all mean deep immersion in the content of a foreign language. Most often, this is just a search for equivalents to words in the native language, a kind of formal replacement of “labels” with a supposedly unchanged meaning. This is the deepest misconception; 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 knowledge of what is hidden behind the seemingly understandable words. What is needed for an adequate perception of such an important component of any culture as the national language?

Ed Ward Sapir spoke very succinctly and accurately about the connection between culture and language in his work “Language. Introduction to the Study of Speech: “Culture can be defined as WHAT a given society does and thinks. Language is HOW one thinks” (Sapir, 1993, p. 193). Agreeing with this definition, we must admit that we PENETRATE into the WAY OF THINKING OF A NATION, INTO ITS WAY OF VISITING THE WORLD, we understand the FEATURES of the mentality of the carriers of a given culture and a given language, only by KNOWING THE PLAN OF THE CONTENT OF THIS LANGUAGE, and a deep acquaintance with the semantics of a foreign language. language, in turn, presupposes, in our opinion, mastery of the linguistic picture of the world (LPW) of this particular national language as a system of its vision of the world.

YCM in cultural studies can be used in two ways:

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

“The task of finding in one language or another the features a priori attributed to the corresponding national character is hopeless and is not of great interest. Anna Vezhbitskaya in her book “Setmantics, Culture and Cognition”... opens an approach to the problem of the connection between language and national character, in which... it is proposed to identify the properties of national character, subtracting them from the national-specific in the corresponding languages . Thus, information about 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 NCM as illustrative material has no right to exist? I think not. It's just a matter of WHAT to illustrate. If in the YCM they are trying to find confirmation of what is only attributed to this or that people, which is only a STEREOTYPE of the perception of one nation by another, and not a proven fact, then such use of the JCM is ineffective. If any data about national character is not just a myth and a stereotype of perception, but the result of an objective scientific study, then such facts can be considered generally accepted and additional confirmation can be sought in the YCM.

We consider both approaches acceptable, the choice of each of which is determined by the specific object of research and its goals, but 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 the particular to the general” and rejects the supposed a priori knowledge of the subject.

In this regard, the so-called principle of “presumption of misunderstanding,” or, as one might also say, “presumption of ignorance,” seems very interesting and productive. It is better to assume that you know nothing about the object under study and gain new objective knowledge about it than to fit facts into an existing stereotype (which does not always adequately reflect reality). This principle was very figuratively and emotionally formulated and stated by Georgy Gachev: “...If I, coming to another country or meeting a new person or idea, assume in advance that here I will meet the same thing that I already know, but with some nuances , - I am too complacent and, naturally, my brain is lazy and complacent and does not give me the usual scheme of the world... But if I enter with 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 I wrote my letters there without hindrance, ... then there is more guarantee that I will comprehend the local way of life and thoughts. By saying to himself: “I don’t understand,” a scientist always ends up obtaining deeper knowledge than by saying to himself: “I understand”... The presumption of misunderstanding is accepted... as a working hypothesis useful for the effectiveness of the research. And it not only does not put barriers to real understanding..., but has the goal of expanding this understanding so that it is more conscious” (Gachev, 1988, pp. 45-46). For cultural studies, such an abstract formation (construct) as the YCM is extremely necessary, since it is nothing more than a VERBALIZED SYSTEM “MAT RITZ”, which captures the national way of seeing the world, shaping 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, a system of imagery, a system of associative thinking, etc.

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

To be fair, it should be noted that in cultural studies proper, a different, broader and less specific concept is much more widely used - NATIONAL IMAGE OF THE WORLD, understood precisely as a national perception of the world. How do these two concepts relate to each other: NCM and NOM? It seems that from this point of view, i.e. in relation precisely to this opposition, the YCM can be defined as an imprinted in words, socially inherited (i.e. transmitted from generation to generation) “cast” of this national image of the world, 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. The reservation about the RELATIVE immutability of the national image of the world is still, it seems, necessary, since one cannot deny the constant development, the constant drift of both national consciousness and the national language reflecting this consciousness

1. The concept of the linguistic picture of the world

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

The term “picture of the world” was put forward within the framework of physics at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. V. Hertz was one of the first to use this term 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, unnecessary relationships, although they cannot be completely avoided, since images are created by the mind (Hertz; 83). Internal images, or symbols, of external objects created by researchers, according to Hertz, must be such that “the logically necessary consequences of these representations, in turn, are images of the naturally necessary consequences of the displayed objects”

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

Possible associations give reason to often mean by the expression “picture of the world” one or another person’s idea of some phenomena of life that were formed in him as a result of his life experience. This understanding of the expression “picture of the world” cannot be classified as strictly scientific; it can rather be one of the countless everyday expressions that reflect the individual understanding and ideas of a particular person regarding any natural phenomenon, 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 of 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 during all his contacts and interactions with the outside world. This can be everyday contacts with the world, and objective - practical human activity.

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. A person contemplates the world, comprehends it, feels, cognizes, reflects. As a result of these processes, a person develops an image of the world, or worldview.

“Imprints” of the picture of the world can be found in language, in gestures, in the visual arts, music, rituals, etiquette, things, facial expressions, and in people’s behavior. The picture of the world forms the type of person’s relationship to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms of human behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life (Apresyan; 45).

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

The linguistic or naive picture of the world is also usually 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 mandatory on all speakers of the language. 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 scope and even content (Apresyan; 357). The conceptual picture of the world or the “model” of the world, in contrast to 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 vestigial, relict ideas of people about the universe.

The issue of conceptualizing the world in language using words is very important. At one time, R. Lado, one of the founders of contrastive linguistics, noted: “There is an illusion, 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 fields, the most interesting thing is to establish the causes of discrepancies in linguistic pictures of the world, and these discrepancies do exist. The solution to such a question is to go beyond linguistics and delve into the secrets of the knowledge of the world by other peoples. There are a huge number of reasons for such discrepancies, but only a few of them seem visible and therefore main. There are three main factors or causes of linguistic differences: nature, culture, cognition. Let's consider these factors.

The first factor is nature. Nature is, first of all, the external living conditions of people, which are reflected differently in languages. A person gives names to those animals, places, 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 peculiarities of perception, even of such phenomena as the perception of color. The designation of color varieties is often motivated by semantic features of visual perception of objects of the surrounding nature. A specific natural object is associated with a particular 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 his world of associative representations, which are reflected in the language by metaphorical transfers of meaning, comparisons, and 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 different conceptual and linguistic ideas about the world. Any feature of the cultural sphere is fixed in language. Also, linguistic differences can be determined by national rites, customs, rituals, folklore and mythological ideas, and 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 work and research has recently been devoted to this problem.

As for the third factor - knowledge, it should be said that rational, sensory and spiritual ways of perceiving the world distinguish each person. The ways of understanding the world are not identical for different people and different nations. This is evidenced by the differences in the results of cognitive activity, which are expressed in the specifics of linguistic ideas and the peculiarities of the linguistic consciousness of different peoples. An important indicator of the influence of cognition on linguistic 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 also cases when the one who sees a pattern 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.

Epistemological, cultural and other features of linguistic conceptualization are closely interconnected, and their delimitation 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 a particular situation, of a particular object is also directly dependent on the subject of perception, on his background knowledge, experience, expectations, on where he himself is located and what is directly in his field of vision. This, in turn, makes it possible to describe the same situation from different points of view and perspectives, which undoubtedly expands the understanding of it. No matter how subjective the process of “constructing the world” may be, it nevertheless most 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”

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

When assessing the picture of the world, one should understand that it is not a reflection of the world and not a window into the world, but it is a person’s interpretation of the world around him, a way of understanding the world. “Language is by no means a simple mirror of the world, and therefore it records not only what is perceived, but also what is meaningful, conscious, and 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 consists of the subjective results of human 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 represents the world not directly, but in the subjective cognitive refraction of a community of people.

As we see, there are many interpretations of the concept “linguistic 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 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.”

V.A. Pishchalnikova

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

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: conceptual picture of the world, picture of the world, image of the world, model of the world, conceptual system, individual cognitive system, linguistic picture peace, etc. The terminological situation is such that it seems very useful to follow the advice of V.P. Zinchenko: “Perhaps the ideal of modern knowledge should be a new syncretism... For this it is useful to return to a state of methodological innocence, to think about what ontology lies behind our, as it seems to us, refined concepts” (7,.57).

Despite all the external differences in the definitions of the concepts listed above, they are united by a philosophical orientation towards the representation of models as a subjective image of the objective world, as an “original 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 highlight two components as mandatory: worldview (vision of the world, sum of ideas about the world, knowledge about the world, reflective ability of thinking, etc.) and the active nature of the picture of the world (cognitive human activity, spiritual activity, human experience, etc.)

The concept of “worldview” was also stated by the linguistic and philosophical concepts of V. humanity,” which contains the idea of the four hypostases of von Humboldt, J.L. Weisgerber, L. Wittgenstein, E. Sapir - B. Whorf and others. V. von Humboldt considers 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 that determines a person’s perception of reality; its unit is the “spiritual object” - the concept. The picture of the world is a moving, dynamic entity, since it is formed from linguistic interventions in reality; its unit is the speech act. As we see, in the formation of both concepts, a huge role belongs to language: “Language is the organ that forms thought, therefore, in the formation of the human personality, in the formation of its system of concepts, in the appropriation of the experience accumulated by generations, language plays a leading role” (5.78) . Y.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. Mauthner, E. Husserl, F. De Saussure. The main idea of Y.L. Weisgerber - “linguistic law of language: 1) actualized language (speech as a mental process and physical phenomenon); 2) “linguistic organism” (language as the basis of individual speech activity); 3) language as an objective social formation; 4) language ability. Y.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 formation and meaning as an individual phenomenon, although only the social (“transpersonal”) level of language is declared as the object of study. Between man and reality there is, according to Weisgerber, the “intermediate world of thinking” and language, which contains a certain idea of the world. “The native language creates the basis for communication in the form of developing a way of thinking that is similar in all its speakers. Moreover, both the idea of the world and the way of thinking are the results of a constantly ongoing process in language world-building, knowledge of the world by specific means of a given language in a given linguistic community (2, 111-112). The perception of the world is carried out by thinking, but with the participation of the native language. Weisgerber's method of reflecting reality is idioethnic in nature and corresponds to the static side of language. In essence, 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 are ingrained in us turn out to be “learned,” i.e. socially determined, once we trace the sphere 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 verbal character and is essentially an activity with signs. The philosopher is confident that all classical philosophy on the problem of the sign nature of thinking has only confused what is quite clear: “From the correct thesis that the external sign form of thought, taken by itself, without connection with its meaning, is dead, it does not follow that as if to impart life to the dead signs one must simply add something intangible” (3, 204). In contrast to this statement, Wittgenstein puts forward another proposition: the life of a sign is given by its use. Moreover, “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 language, the structure of thinking and the structure of the reflected situation. A sentence is a model of reality, copying its structure in its logical-syntactic form. Hence: to the extent a person speaks a language, to the extent he knows the world. A linguistic unit does not represent a certain linguistic meaning, but a concept, therefore Wittgenstein does not distinguish between the linguistic picture of the world and the 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, and it is important that Wingenstein was fully aware of the metaphorical nature of this term and emphasized its synonymy with the psychological concept “image of the world.”

A fundamental contribution to the differentiation of concepts picture of the world And linguistic picture of the world introduced by E. Sapir and B. Whorf, who argued that “the idea that a person navigates the external 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 linguistic habits of a particular social group” (11, 261). By using the combination “real world,” E. Sapir means the “intermediate world,” which includes 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 only to his traditional subject ... he cannot but share the mutual interests that connect linguistics with anthropology and cultural history, with sociology, psychology, philosophy and - in the longer term - with physiology and physics” (11, 260-261). Emphasizing that “language has the power to divide experience into theoretically separable elements and carry out a gradual transition of potential meanings into real ones, which allows human beings to transcend the limits of the immediate given individual experience and join a more generally accepted understanding of the world around them” (11, 226), E. Sapir contrasts “potential” and “real” meanings. As we see, the different naming of the concepts of the world model 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 relationship between the picture of the world and the linguistic picture of the world determined by this volume. It seems therefore that such a position is quite fair, which combines the content of language and thinking in a single model: “Language is initially connected directly with thinking, and in epistemological terms the relationship is really not “language - thinking - world”, but “linguistic thinking - world.” It is therefore correct to speak also 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 the study of the category “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 reflecting the outside world, which determines the ways in which a fairly large community of people react. (A.V. Petrovsky). At the same time, mentality is also defined as a set of views, ideas, “feelings” of a community of people of a certain era, geographic 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 Russian science also because for a long time the content of the category “social consciousness” was, in fact, equated with ideology. The ideologization of human thinking is perceived as “the replacement of the formation of individual consciousness with the formation of a 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 “social” and not values associated with selfish motives, which allows a person to deceive his conscience, to 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, the danger of an anthropological catastrophe arises). According to V.P. Zinchenko, the consciousness of representatives of our society has ceased to be cultural and historical, because the connections between consciousness and activity, consciousness and personality were destroyed. If it persisted, it ceased to be involved in life, broke out of the single continuum of being-consciousness, turned into something irrational...” (7, 128). (Italics are mine. – V.P.).

It is the well-known discrediting of the category “social consciousness” that leads to the fact that a psychological interpretation of the concept of mentality is more often outlined as “a certain characteristic of a specific culture (subculture) specificity of the mental life of people representing a given 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 synonymous 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 detect in language the reasons that encourage people to attach significance to some aspects of phenomena and ignore others . From here we logically come to the traditional opposition between 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 some part of the supra-individual complex of universal knowledge. Thus, he joins the world of ideas and concepts that existed before him. At the same time, the content of an individual’s thinking also includes experimental, perceptual knowledge. In addition, the mental activity of an individual is undoubtedly formed under the influence of a 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 that existed before individual, but not For him.

In logical-linguistic studies of the picture of the world, following V.I. Postovalova, is called “the original global image of the world, underlying a person’s worldview, representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and being the result of all spiritual activity of a person” (10). It seems that this definition confuses the real object (“the result of all spiritual activity of a person”) and the model of the object (the image of the world). In addition to the picture of the world, a certain worldview is identified, for which the first is only the basis. What a worldview is and what the basis for its emergence is is not made 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 individual’s non-essential perceptual and other knowledge 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 defining the concept of a picture of the world, we will not discover anything new in comparison with the long-known and widely known definitions of materialist philosophers.

This feeling intensifies if we consider specific, in the opinion of 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 unclear how the last two pairs of oppositions differ.)

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

The identified criteria are so obviously unsubstantiated that there is no need to engage in serious criticism of them. It is enough 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, besides the well-known subjective mental sensation?

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

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

Summarizing what has been said, we can assume that the conceptual picture of the world (picture of the world) in linguistics means 1) a set knowledge about the world, which is acquired through human activity, 2) methods and mechanisms for interpreting 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 this 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 units of language - the linguistic picture of the world, even if we are talking about knowledge - 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 does not understand what language allows him, but verbalizes the content of thinking that is subjectively relevant for the individual in a given speech situation. Apparently, the concept of a linguistic picture of the world should include not only stereotypical methods 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 a conceptual system given by R.Y. Pavilionis: 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 focuses on the reflected experience of the individual both at the linguistic and pre-linguistic levels, while language is considered simultaneously both as part of the individual’s conceptual system and as a means of constructing and symbolically representing the conceptual system. It is also important that the conceptual system is formed not only as a result of the influence of so-called objective reality. It is also the result of reflection as a process of independent work of thinking on structuring its content, and a continuous process.

What is there? meaningfulness of linguistic expressions with this understanding of the conceptual system? This is the possibility of constructing the structure of concepts in a supporting conceptual system, this is the possibility of interpreting a linguistic expression with the content of the conceptual system of the perceiver.

This is the understanding of the conceptual system given by logician R.Y. Pavilionis, which we have taken as the basis for the psycholinguistic definition of the category under study. We fully share the view that linguistic expressions 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 with this text in the individual's thinking. Consequently, a linguistic unit, updating all the mental content associated with it in the experience of the recipient, allows the recipient to appropriate the speech work (understand it). That is language sign practically excites the recipient's thinking process of meaning generation.(We note in passing that this position allows us to consider the openness of the language system not so much as a fundamental possibility of introducing new substantial elements into the language, but as the ability to designate an almost infinite number of meanings using 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 in at least three ways: language is a means coding of meanings by bodies of signs, with the help of manipulation of linguistic units is carried out manipulation of meanings, language is a means of social communication and reflection. Language objectifies the content of conceptual systems. From here you can define a conceptual system (picture of the world) as a continuous system of meanings, structured in the activity of an individual as a result of his appropriation of conventional experience and perceptual processes And actual reflection of thinking We prefer to use the term conceptual system rather than picture of the world, 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 consequence of the constant formation of new concepts not only through expanding/deepening experience, but also through constant restructuring of existing content.

The above definition of a 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 determined. Therefore, understanding 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 J.L. Language and philosophy.//Issues 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. von. Selected works on linguistics. M., 1984.

6. Dubov I.G. The phenomenon of mentality: psychological analysis // Issues 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. Pavilionis R.J. The problem of meaning. Logical-functional analysis of language. M., 1983.

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

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

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

in the course “Psycholinguistics”

The concept of a linguistic picture of the world

Completed:

2nd year student, 2nd group

Kucherov A.A.

Checked by: Ph.D., Associate Professor

Sokolova O. V.

Novokuznetsk, 2011

Introduction

1.Linguistic picture of the world

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

.Interrelation of pictures of the world

.Components of the national picture of the world

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

The topic of the presented work is “The concept of the linguistic picture of the world”

Over the past decades, both in Russia and in the world, there has been an increasing interest in the study of culture from the perspective of linguistics and psycholinguistics, primarily in what lies behind language, behind speech, behind speech activity, i.e., in 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-cultural specifics of certain aspects or fragments of the picture of the world from different positions: some take the language as the source language, analyze the established facts of interlingual similarities or divergences through the prism of linguistic systematicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the starting point is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguistic and cultural community, and the focus is on the image of the world. 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 we will talk below about research carried out from the perspective of different approaches, it seems justified to use the term “picture of the world” as a neutral term, accompanying it with the clarification “linguistic” or replacing the word “picture” with the word “image”.

The relevance of studying 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 currently 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 specific study of how linguistic units reflected man himself as a national personality in all the diversity of his manifestations is relevant.

Goals of work:

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

) determine the constituent elements of the national linguistic personality;

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

1. LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

A linguistic picture of the world, historically formed in the everyday consciousness of a given linguistic community and reflected in the language as 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 idea can only be objectified by making “its own way through the mouth into the outside world.” The word, thus, carries the burden of subjective ideas, the differences of which are within certain limits, since their speakers are members of the same linguistic community and 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 the “energy” of language.

The main characteristics of the linguistic picture of the world, which L. Weisgerber endows it with, 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 ethnicity and language, and, on the other hand, is the reason for the peculiar path of their further development,

The linguistic picture of the world as a single “living organism” is clearly structured and, in linguistic terms, multi-level. It determines 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 overall communicative behavior, understanding of the external world of nature and the internal world of man and the language system,

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

The linguistic picture of the world creates the homogeneity of the linguistic essence, helping to consolidate its linguistic, and therefore cultural, uniqueness in the vision of the world and its designation by means of language,

The linguistic picture of the world exists in a homogeneous, unique self-awareness of the linguistic community and is transmitted to subsequent generations through a special worldview, rules of behavior, way of life, imprinted by means of language,

The picture of the world of any language is the transformative power of the language, which forms the idea of the surrounding world through 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 the native language. L. Weisgerber's method of reflecting reality is idioethnic in nature and corresponds to the static form of language. In essence, the scientist emphasizes the intersubjective part of the individual’s thinking: “There is no doubt that many of the views and modes of behavior and attitudes that are ingrained in us turn out to be “learned,” that is, socially conditioned, as soon as we trace the sphere of their manifestation throughout the world.” Modern ideas about NCM are as follows.

Language is a fact of culture, an integral part of the culture that we inherit, and at the same time its instrument. The culture of a people is verbalized in language; it is the language that accumulates the key concepts of culture, transmitting them in a symbolic embodiment - words. The model of the world created by language is a subjective image of the objective world; it carries within itself the features of the human way of comprehending the world, i.e. anthropocentrism that permeates all 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 and multi-level. It is the linguistic picture of the world that determines communicative behavior, understanding of the external world and the inner world of a person. It reflects the way of speech and thinking 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 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 mandatory on all native speakers.

The linguistic picture of the world, as noted by G.V. Kolshansky, is based on the characteristics of the social and labor experience of each people. Ultimately, these features find their expression in 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 a word), etc. in language “the whole variety of creative cognitive activity of a person (social and individual) is fixed”, which consists precisely in the fact that “in accordance with the boundless number of conditions that are the stimulus in his directed cognition, each time he selects and consolidates one of the countless properties of objects and phenomena and their connections. It is this human factor that is clearly visible in all linguistic formations, both in the norm and in its deviations and individual styles.”

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

The picture of the world offered by language differs from the “scientific” one, and each language paints its own picture, depicting reality somewhat differently than other languages do. Reconstruction of the JCM is one of the most important tasks of modern linguistic semantics. The study of NCM is carried out in two directions, in accordance with the two named components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systematic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a certain language, a reconstruction of an integral system of ideas reflected in a given language is carried out, 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, individual concepts characteristic of a given language (language-specific) are studied, which have two properties: they are “key” for a given culture (in the sense that they provide a “key” to its understanding) and at the same time the corresponding words are poorly translated into other languages : a translation equivalent is either absent altogether (as, for example, for the Russian words melancholy, anguish, perhaps, daring, will, restless, sincerity, ashamed, offensive, inconvenient), or such an equivalent exists in principle, but it does not contain exactly those components of meaning , which are specific to a given word (such as, for example, 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 WORK

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 man and his existence, his relationship with the world, the most important conditions of his existence in the world.

Appeal to the concept of “picture of the world” emphasizes the activity approach to understanding the process of the individual’s relationship with reality, focusing on the content-ontological aspects of the study.

Promoting the 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 thereby 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 images of the world that underlie life activity;

) 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 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 contains constants inherent in each individual, ensuring mutual understanding between people

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

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

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

) continuity of construction of the conceptual system;

) continuity of the conceptual system: the introduced concept is interpreted by all 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. Pavilionis, lies in a systematized representation of the knowledge and opinions of the individual, corresponding to intersubjective and subjective information.

Analyzing the theory of the conceptual system of R.I. Pavilenisa, V.A. Pishchalnikova notes that the concept includes both psychological meaning and personal meaning. . The core of this education is the concept - a generalization of objects of a certain class according to their specific characteristics. The existence of an intersubjective part in each component of the concept provides the possibility of communication between carriers of different CS. It is generally accepted that the process of operating with concepts is inextricably linked with the use of language, which determines in the concept the presence of a linguistic component (the body of the sign), which, in turn, includes phonosemantic, expressive, associative and other components. And since the concept correlates with some object of reality, the concept includes the component “subject content” (referential correlation). Thus, language appears as one of the components of the concept. “The meanings of words and other meaningful units of language acquired 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 type of such information can be associated with the sign.” Meaning is understood as a form of consciousness that unites “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 a concept, the function of which is to fix and actualize the conceptual, emotional, associative, verbal, cultural and other content of objects of reality included in the structure of the conceptual picture of the world. The problem of understanding should be considered primarily as a problem of understanding the world by the subject on the basis of his existing conceptual picture of the world, which is objectified and represented in his activity.

INTERRELATION OF WORLD PICTURES

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 as understood by 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 a person’s concept and 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 of 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 during all his contacts and interactions with the outside world. This can be everyday contacts with the world, and objective - practical human activity. 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. A person contemplates the world, comprehends it, feels, cognizes, reflects. As a result of these processes, a person develops an image of the world, or worldview.

As for the reflection of the picture of the world in language, the introduction of the concept of “picture of the world” into anthropological linguistics makes it possible to distinguish between two types of human influence on language - the influence of psychophysiological and other types of human characteristics on the constitutive properties of language and the influence on the language of various pictures of the world - religious-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, introducing into it the features of a person and his culture. With the help of language, the experiential knowledge acquired by individuals is transformed into a collective property, collective experience. Each of the pictures of the world, which, as a displayed fragment of the world, represents language as a special phenomenon, sets its own vision of language and in its own way determines the principle of operation of language. Studying and comparing different visions of language through the prisms of different pictures of the world can offer linguistics new ways to penetrate into the nature of language and its knowledge.

The linguistic picture of the world is an image of consciousness - reality, reflected by means of language, a model of integral knowledge about the conceptual system of ideas represented by language. The linguistic picture of the world is usually distinguished from the conceptual or cognitive model of the world, which is the basis of linguistic embodiment, verbal conceptualization of the totality of human knowledge about the world. The linguistic or naive picture of the world is also usually 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 mandatory on all speakers of the language. 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 scope and even content (Apresyan; 357). The conceptual picture of the world or the “model” of the world, in contrast to 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 vestigial, relict ideas of people about the universe.

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL PICTURE OF THE WORLD

FRAME. The representation of text as a hierarchy of frames reflects the patterns of text construction and information distribution. Frame analysis makes it possible to build a hierarchical system of semantic relationships within the text. For a frame representation of the semantics of a text, it is necessary to define transformation operations that change its content, and when preserving 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 models of frame management affect certain requirements for the context, the immediate semantic and syntactic environment of the language unit. A contextual norm is a kind of stereotype. Expectations are determined by knowledge about the standard context and situation. When filling out variables, the situational context is taken into account, which allows us to talk about context-dependent strategies for filling out the basic frame, i.e. control models are being assigned 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 a given situation. In determining whether a text element corresponds or does not correspond to any frame selected as a limiter for the compatibility of elements, the following conditions are involved:

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

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

typification of processes/actions and relationships by identity or similarity of models for managing the semantic structure of the frame.

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

Frame script

Representing knowledge about the world using frames turns out to be 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 frame-scenarios. A frame script according to M. Minsky is a typical structure for some action, concept of an event, etc., including the characteristic elements of this action, concept, event. For example, a frame script for an event consisting of celebrating a child's birthday includes the following elements, which can be interpreted as frame nodes filled with absence tasks:

Clothes: Sunday, the best;

Gift: must be liked.

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

For a frame-scenario - 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 can I get money? etc.

In order to understand the action being described 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 (the recipient)?”

“How was it produced (the instrument)?”

For understanding things other than actions, slightly different questions are asked, and these questions may be much less localized than for understanding actions, such as “Why are they telling me this?” “How can I find out more about X?” etc. In a story, one asks what the theme is, what the author's attitude is, what the main event is, who the main character is, etc. As each question is tentatively answered, new frames may 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 that asking very few questions is enough to understand the situation.

In the case of script frames, the frame terminal markers become more complex than in the case of visual frames, and define recommendations regarding 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 tasks or lists 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. Wilkes (1973).

Restaurant scenario

Roles: customer, waitress, chef, cashier.

Goal: get food to satisfy your 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 simply a chain of events, but rather a connected causal chain of actions. It can branch into many possible paths, which converge at points that are particularly characteristic of the scenario - elementary actions. For the restaurant scenario, these actions are “eating” and “paying money.”

To know when to use a script, you need headers. These headers define the circumstances under which a given scenario is accessed.

A stereotype is a certain “representation” of a fragment of the surrounding reality, a fixed mental “picture”, which is the result of reflection in the consciousness of an individual of a “typical” fragment of the real world, a certain invariant of a certain part of the picture of the world. However, a stereotype as a representation can appear in two forms: as a certain scenario of a situation and as a representation itself, i.e. not only as a canon, but also as a standard. In the first case, a 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 stereotype of representation. Such a stereotype performs a predictive function: it determines what should be expected in a given situation. So, for example, the stereotype representation of a queue includes shouting, anger, aggression, rudeness, i.e. what you can “expect” from the queue. But this does not mean at all that I should behave the same way when standing in line. In other words, the stereotype - ideas and the stereotype of behavior - clearly diverge here. 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 in both Russian and English, as they are defined through the word stereotyped, in turn defined as “hackneyed, devoid of originality and expressiveness.” This is not entirely 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 boundaries 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, finding themselves in the same situation, react to it differently, in accordance with those features of their national character , which are attributed to them in the homeland of the joke. 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 linguistic stereotype are correlated as part and whole, while the linguistic stereotype is understood as a judgment or several judgments relating to a specific object of the extra-linguistic 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, cliche, etc.: a person of Caucasian nationality, gray-haired like a harrier, a new Russian.

A stereotype is a person’s idea of the world, formed under the influence of the cultural environment (in other words, it is a culturally determined idea), 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 the characteristics of another nation, as well as everything that concerns one nation’s ideas 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, and therefore has a specific character. “Concepts represent the 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 currently comes down to its function of being a carrier and at the same time a way of conveying meaning, to the ability to “store knowledge about the world, helping to process subjective experience by placing 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, despite all the obvious differences between these categories, which the concept can contain and in which it is simultaneously capable of being realized. The main thing in the concept is the multidimensionality and discrete integrity of meaning, which nevertheless exists in a continuous cultural-historical space and therefore predisposes to cultural translation from one subject area to another, which allows us to call the concept the main way of cultural translation. The concept, thus, is a means of overcoming the discrete nature of ideas about reality and an ontologized complex of these ideas. It is precisely this that is the means that makes it possible to “thicken” the field of culture. Analysis of numerous observations by 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 a 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.

A 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 and reference.

Concepts are hierarchical, their systemic relationships 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 embodiments are the terms “lingutorial picture of the world” and “linguistic image of the world” since it is stated that “The system and structure of the linguoritorial picture of the world is formed by cultural concepts.”

The infinity of the concept is determined by its existence 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 limitless.

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

The concept and speech, contextual embodiments are in relationships similar to those of phoneme and sound, morpheme and morph. The linguistic concept is abstract and immaterial, while speech, contextual embodiments are material and concrete. The existence of the concept is realized through speech and contextual embodiments.

A concept can be considered as a combination of its “external”, categorical attribution and internal, semantic structure, which has a strict logical organization. The concept is based on the original, prototypical model of the basic meaning of the word (i.e., 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, that is, it causes the removal of new derived values from the central one.

CONCLUSION

Having analyzed 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 in the field of its recent research problems of psychology and ethnology of speech, cultural and linguo-philosophical. Cognitive linguistics, which has received wide recognition and dissemination in modern foreign and domestic science, in its sphere of interests identifies such concepts as “image of the world”, “image of consciousness”, “linguistic consciousness”, “picture of the world”, “linguistic picture of the world” and etc.

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-cultural specifics of certain aspects or fragments of the picture of the world 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 systematicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the starting point is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguistic and cultural community, and the focus is on the image of the world. The picture of the world is the central concept of a person’s concept and expresses the specifics of his existence. The picture of the world forms the type of person’s relationship to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms of human behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life.

Based on the above, we can say that language acts as a mirror of national culture, its guardian. Linguistic units, primarily words, record content that, to one degree or another, goes back to the living conditions of the people who are native speakers of the language. 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, record 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 features of life, customs and history of the people.

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

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

2.Brutyan G. A. Language and the picture of the world // Philosophy. Sciences. 1983. No. 1.

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

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

.Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of 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: Course of lectures. - M.: ITDGK "Gnosis", 2002. - 284 p.

.Frumkina, R.M., Psycholinguistics: Textbook. for students higher textbook establishments. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2001. - pp. 189-206

.Pavilionis R.I. The problem of meaning: Modern logical-functional analysis of language. - M.: Progress, 2001.

.Pavilionis R.I. Understanding of speech and philosophy of language // New in foreign linguistics. - Vol. ХVII. - 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 the picture of the world. - M.: Nauka, 1988.

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

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

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

So, being an instrument of culture, language, like mythology, religion or art, is capable of drawing its own holistic image of the world, which has a historically determined character. Accordingly, we can talk about the existence of such a type of picture of the world as a linguistic picture of the world.

Linguistic picture of the world call the body of knowledge about the world that is reflected in language, as well as ways of obtaining and interpreting new knowledge that influences the linguistic reflection of the latter.

The main features of the linguistic picture of the world, in principle, are correlated with the three features of the conceptual picture of the world, but they have a certain specificity due to the characteristics of language as a form of consciousness. In particular, in contrast to the actual picture of the world, which for convenience we will further call immediate, the linguistic picture of the world belongs to the so-called "mediated" pictures of the world, since it is formed as a result of the materialization of the immediate picture of the world by means of another, secondary sign system - language.

This explains the fact why in most scientific works the essence of the linguistic picture of the world is derived through its comparison with the direct picture of the world. Taking as a basis the argument that human thinking is “externalized” by language, modern researchers of the linguistic picture of the world draw the conclusion: the study of ideas about reality recorded in language allows us to judge the immediate picture of the world. However, it is emphasized that the direct picture of the world is broader than the linguistic one, since not all ideas have linguistic expression; Only that which has communicative significance is recorded in language. For example, the language does not have a designation for the color of x-rays, which humans simply do not perceive visually. That is why in the immediate picture of the world it is possible to distinguish peripheral areas that are not indicated by the linguistic picture of the world, and the core, the content of which is fixed in the language.

As is known, the direct picture of the world consists of concepts as quanta of knowledge structured in a special way. When forming a linguistic picture of the world, these concepts are subject to the so-called “ verbalization" or "linguistic representation".

In this case, the concept is not necessarily denoted by one linguistic sign (in particular, a word). Often a concept is expressed by several linguistic signs, but may not be verbalized at all, that is, not represented in the language system, and exist on the basis of other sign systems - gestures, music, dance. For example, the concept “stupid” can be expressed using the characteristic tapping of a finger on the forehead. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the content of a concept is best expressed by the entire set of language means. These include:

Nominative means of language - lexemes, phraseological units, as well as a significant absence of nominative units (the so-called “lacunarity”);

Functional means of language - selection of vocabulary for communication, composition of the most frequent linguistic means against the background of the entire corpus of linguistic units of the language system;

Figurative means of language - metaphors, internal forms of linguistic units;

Discursive means of language are special means of constructing texts of different genres;

Strategies for assessing language utterances.

The second feature of the linguistic picture of the world, also correlated with the features of the immediate picture of the world, is its integrity. The very metaphor “picture of the world” implies the similarity of the linguistic picture of the world with another system – the visual one. Like the visual image, language is not composed of individual parameters (for example, shape and size); in the linguistic image of the world, these parameters are merged into a single whole.

This approach initially excludes the comparison of different linguistic pictures of the world based on several specific words or statements and encourages researchers to compare holistic images of the world captured in language, however, the picture of the world cannot be fully represented and is not recognized by a person as such in its entirety, even with targeted reflection . It is known, and therefore studied, only in fragments.

Finally, the third feature of the linguistic picture of the world is its subjectivity. Just as in the case of the direct picture of the world, the point here is that a person’s knowledge about the world around him is not simply “objectively reflected” in language; the process of their display is necessarily accompanied by interpretation, which manifests itself, among other things, at the linguistic level. That is why today a number of linguists are studying the value aspect of the linguistic picture of the world, or the linguaxiological picture of the world. The units of this aspect are evaluative linguistic units that record the value of a particular segment of reality for a person. The greater the value, the more versatile designation it receives in the language.

The value-evaluative aspect of the picture of the world can be expressed in language, first of all, in two ways: through the evaluative connotations of a unit, which is the name of the characterized concept, or through a combination of this unit with evaluative epithets.

It should be noted that the linguistic picture of the world, like the direct picture of the world, not only interpretive, but also regulatory function. Of course, this function is performed, first of all, by the direct picture of the world, which serves as a guide for its bearer in carrying out life activities. The linguistic picture of the world, due to its secondary nature, cannot have a direct influence on a person’s behavior and thinking, however, it is thanks to it that a symbolic reflection and consolidation of the results of the activity of a linguistic personality occurs, without which a person’s further life activity, in particular, his acquisition of new knowledge about the world around him, It's simply impossible to imagine.

The linguistic picture of the world is of great importance in the process of communication as an exchange of information, the participants of which are its carriers. It is obvious that in the course of communication, certain problems of understanding inevitably arise due to partial discrepancies in the worldviews of the interlocutors. However, the linguistic picture of the world, which sets the methods for encoding and decoding the meaning of a message, in general always serves as a kind of mediator in the communication of people, ensuring their mutual understanding, and minor differences in individual linguistic pictures of the world can be easily overcome, for example, by including in one of them new language elements.

3. Correlation between linguistic and scientific pictures of the world.

As mentioned above, the linguistic picture of the world is not the only holistic image of the world that can be formed in the human consciousness, and different forms of consciousness “paint” different pictures of the same reality, which do not exist in isolation, but in close connection with each other. In most studies devoted to the linguistic picture of the world, the latter is compared with the scientific picture of the world, which is understood as a holistic image of the subject of scientific research at a given stage of its historical development. To emphasize their differences, a number of works use the designation synonymous with the linguistic picture of the world - "naive picture of the world". In this way, the pre-scientific nature of the linguistic picture of the world, accumulating only everyday knowledge, its approximateness and inaccuracy is emphasized. However, as E.V. proves. Uryson, language as a system does not always reflect exclusively everyday ideas about the world, since, for example, in the Russian language, situations can be designated using nouns, although from the point of view of everyday views only verbs are used for this purpose. In addition, so-called “naive” linguistic concepts are often no less complex than scientific ones. In particular, ideas about the inner world of man reflect the experience of dozens of generations over many millennia. Therefore, the statement about the “naivety” of the linguistic picture of the world should not be absolutized.

The linguistic and scientific picture of the world differ in other ways. One of them is the degree of awareness of the corresponding knowledge system by its bearer. If the linguistic picture of the world exists in our minds in a rather vague, unformed form, then the scientific picture of the world, on the contrary, is based on conscious cognitive attitudes, mandatory definitions and is the subject of constant reflection by its bearers.

The next basis for distinguishing between the linguistic picture of the world and the scientific picture of the world is the degree of variability of each of them. It is well known that the linguistic picture of the world changes much more slowly than the scientific one, and for a long time retains traces of mistakes made by man in the process of cognition. For example, not a single language has eliminated the phrase “black” from its vocabulary after physicists determined that it is not a color, but the absence of any color.

As follows from the above points of view, many domestic researchers advocate that there are a number of differences between the linguistic and scientific pictures of the world. O.A. Kornilov believes that due to the exceptional diversity of such differences, the implied pictures of the world generally have only one common feature - the object of reflection, that is, the real world. At the same time, the researcher emphasizes that in the linguistic picture of the world, objective reality constitutes only part of the content plan, since linguistic consciousness generates a huge number of mythical objects and characteristics that are not present in the real world.

However, despite the existence of a number of differences between the linguistic and scientific pictures of the world, the fact that there is an inextricable connection between them is irrefutable, since science necessarily relies on the material of human language and any scientific thought is necessarily mediated by the linguistic picture of the world of its bearer.

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

Modern ideas about the linguistic picture of the world as presented by academician. Yu.D. Apresyan look like this.

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

(L. Weisgerber and others) about the internal form of language, and on the other hand - to the ideas of American ethnolinguistics, in particular, the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity.

The concept of “linguistic picture of the world” was introduced into the scientific terminological system by L. Weisgerber. The main characteristics of the linguistic picture of the world that the author gives it are the following:

Current status

In recent years, the linguistic picture of the world has become one of the most pressing topics in Russian linguistics.

The linguistic picture of the world is defined as follows:

It is argued that the totality of ideas about the world, contained in the meaning of different words and expressions of a given language, develops into a certain unified system of views, or prescriptions (for example, it's good if other people know how a person feels), and is imposed as mandatory on all speakers of the language, because the ideas that form the picture of the world are included in the meanings of words in an implicit form. Using words containing implicit meanings, a person, without noticing it, accepts the view of the world contained in them. On the contrary, those semantic components that are included in the meaning of words and expressions in the form of direct statements can be the subject of dispute between different speakers of the language and thus are not included in the general fund of ideas that forms the linguistic picture of the world. So, from the Russian proverb Love is blind it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the place of love in the Russian linguistic picture of the world: we can only say that the goat appears in it as an unattractive creature.

According to O. A. Kornilov, in modern linguistics two approaches to the linguistic picture of the world can be distinguished: “objectivist” and “subjectivist”. The first of them assumes that in the formation of a picture of the world, language is not the demiurge of this picture, but only a form of expression of conceptual (mental-abstract) content obtained by a person in the process of his activity (theory and practice). Thus, the linguistic picture of the world is “tied” to the objective world through the postulation of its desire to reflect objective reality as accurately and adequately as possible.

According to the second, “subjectivist” approach, the linguistic picture of the world is a secondary world reflected in language, which is the result of refraction of the objective world in human consciousness. Ordinary language creates a linguistic picture of the world, which reflects and records not only knowledge about the world, but also misconceptions, feelings about the world, its assessment, fantasies and dreams about the world. Such an understanding of the essence of the linguistic picture of the world does not require objectivity from it.

According to V.N. Telia, the linguistic picture of the world is an inevitable product of consciousness for mental and linguistic activity, arising as a result of the interaction of thinking, reality and language as a means of expressing thoughts about the world in acts of communication. Metaphor is one of the most productive means of forming secondary names in creating a linguistic picture of the world.

It is noted that the linguistic picture of the world reflects the state of perception of reality that developed in past periods of language development in society. At the same time, the linguistic picture of the world changes over time, and its changes are a reflection of the changing world, the emergence of new realities, and not a desire for identity with the scientific picture of the world.

Typology of linguistic pictures of the world

The linguistic picture of the world is generally an abstraction. In reality, only linguistic pictures of the world of specific national languages exist and can be analyzed - national linguistic pictures of the world.

The result of the reflection of the objective world by the ordinary (linguistic) consciousness of an individual is an individual national picture of the world. Also, the national linguistic picture of the world is contrasted with linguistic pictures of the world limited to the social sphere - territorially (dialects, dialects) and professionally (sublanguages of sciences and crafts).

Literature

Apresyan Yu. D. The image of a person according to language // Selected works, vol. 2. - M., 1995.
Gvozdeva A. A. Linguistic picture of the world: linguocultural and gender features (based on the material of artistic works of Russian-speaking and English-speaking authors). - Krasnodar, 2004.
Zaliznyak Anna A., Levontina I. B., Shmelev A. D. Key ideas of the Russian linguistic picture of the world. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2005.
Kolshansky G.V. An objective picture of the world in cognition and language. - M.: Nauka, 1990. - 103 p.
Kornilov O. A. Language pictures of the world as derivatives of national mentalities. - M., 2002.
Novikova N. S., Cheremisina N. V. Many worlds in reality and the general typology of linguistic pictures of the world // Philological Sciences. - 2000. - No. 1. - P. 40-49.
Popova Z. D., Sternin I. A. Essays on cognitive linguistics. - Voronezh: Origins, 2001.
Sukalenko N. I. Reflection of everyday consciousness in a figurative linguistic picture of the world. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1992. - 164 p.
Telia V.N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world // The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. - M., 1988.
Chulkina N. L. The world of everyday life in the linguistic consciousness of Russians: Linguistic and cultural description. Ed.3, stereot. - M., 2009. - 256 p. - ISBN 978-5-397-00643-9
Yakovleva E. S. Fragments of the Russian linguistic picture of the world. (Models of space, time and perception). - M., 1994.

Notes

Links

Linguistic picture of the world // Online encyclopedia "Around the World"
Anna Zaliznyak, Irina Levontina, Alexey Shmelev. Key ideas of the Russian language picture of the world
Vorotnikov Yu. L. “Linguistic picture of the world”: interpretation of the concept
Content of the concept of linguistic picture of the world in linguistics
V. N. Telia Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world
Olga Andreeva. A picture of the world drawn by language // Russian Reporter, No. 44 (74), November 20, 2008.
L. M. Bondareva. On the problem of the linguistic picture of the world in German linguistics
A. B. Mikhalev. Layers of the linguistic picture of the world

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Linguistic picture of the world” is in other dictionaries:

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD- LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD. The body of knowledge about the world around a person, captured in linguistic form. Reflected in the language are the ideas of a given linguistic community about the structure, elements and processes of reality. The picture of the world as the central...

linguistic picture of the world- Internal form of language (Kulikova I.S., Salmina D.V., 2002). In turn, the internal form of language is interpreted as a specific way for each language to reflect and represent reality in language, a linguistic worldview (W. Humboldt). IN… … Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal

Linguistic picture of the world- Peculiarities of division and categorization of the external world, enshrined in language, which influence the native speaker in the process of cognition and mastery of this world. The influence of the native language on the knowledge of the world was noted by W. von Humboldt, who believed... ... Dictionary of sociolinguistic terms

Linguistic picture of the world- – see Linguistic personality... Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language

PICTURE OF THE WORLD- PICTURE OF THE WORLD. 1. The body of knowledge and opinions of the subject regarding real or conceivable reality. 2. Reflected in linguistic forms and categories, texts, concepts, opinions, judgments, ideas of the people speaking a given language about... ... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

This article needs to be completely rewritten. There may be explanations on the talk page... Wikipedia

Language personality- (English linguistic personality) cognitive communicative invariant, a generalized image of the bearer of cultural, linguistic and communicative activity values, knowledge, attitudes and forms of behavior. Prerequisites for the concept of Ya. l. laid down by the ideas of L.... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures Author: “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) Original language: Hebrew, Aramaic and ancient ... Wikipedia

Anna Andreevna Zaliznyak Anna Zaliznyak (2007) Country ... Wikipedia

LINGUISTIC FUNDAMENTALS OF THE METHODOLOGY- abbreviation, paragraph, automatic text processing, automatic translation, autonomous speech, speech adaptation, text adaptation, addresser, addressee, alphabet, speech act, active grammar, active vocabulary, active speech, active possession... ... New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

Ideas about the linguistic picture of the world. Language pictures of the world

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

§1.1. The cultural imperative of introducing into scientific use the concept of “linguistic picture of the world”

Tutoring

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

Current status

Typology of linguistic pictures of the world

see also

Literature

Notes

Links

See what “Linguistic picture of the world” is in other dictionaries:

We recommend other articles

Ideas about the linguistic picture of the world. Language pictures of the world

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

§1.1. The cultural imperative of introducing into scientific use the concept of “linguistic picture of the world”

Tutoring

LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD

Current status

Typology of linguistic pictures of the world

see also

Literature

Notes

Links

See what “Linguistic picture of the world” is in other dictionaries:

We recommend other articles

Korean salads - the best recipes

Cupcake with jam - recipe with photo