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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weisgerber's theory of the language picture of the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern understanding of the "linguistic picture of the world"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A large number of scientists are studying the linguistic picture of the world, among which are Yu.D. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A. Vezhbitskaya, A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontina, E.V. , A.D. Shmelev, E.S. Yakovlev and many others.

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

List of used literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature:

Arutyunova N.D. Dostoevsky's style within the framework of the Russian picture of the world. - In the book: Poetics. Stylistics. Language and culture. In memory of T.G. Vinokur. M., 1996
Jordan L.N. An attempt at a lexicographic interpretation of a group of Russian words with the meaning of feeling. – Machine Translation and Applied Linguistics, vol. 13. M., 1970
Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning. M., 1976
Arutyunova N.D. Anomalies and language: To the problem« language picture of the world". - Questions of linguistics, 1987, No. 3
Lakoff D., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. - In the book: Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987
Penkovsky A.B. " Joy» and « pleasure» in the representation of the Russian language. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. cultural concepts. M., 1991
Apresyan V.Yu., Apresyan Yu.D. Metaphor in the semantic representation of emotions. - Questions of linguistics, 1993, No. 3
Yakovleva E.S. Fragments of the Russian language picture of the world. (Models of space, time and perception). M., 1994
Apresyan Yu.D. The image of a person according to the language. - In the book: Apresyan Yu.D. Selected works, vol. 2. M., 1995
Uryson E.V. Fundamental human abilities and naive « anatomy". - Questions of linguistics, 1995, No. 3
Vezhbitskaya A. Language, culture, knowledge. M., 1996
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. " Poprechny Kus". - Russian speech, 1996, No. 5
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Russian « at the same time» as an expression of attitude. - Russian speech, 1996, No. 2
Zaliznyak Anna A., Shmelev A.D. Time of day and activities. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. language and time. M., 1997
Stepanov Yu.S. Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. M., 1997
Shmelev A.D. The lexical composition of the Russian language as a reflection« Russian soul". - In the book: T.V. Bulygina, A.D. Shmelev. Linguistic conceptualization of the world (based on Russian grammar). M., 1997
Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Surprises in the Russian language picture of the world. – POLYTROPON. To the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov. M., 1998
Vezhbitskaya A. Semantic universals and description of languages. M., 1999
Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Moving in space as a metaphor for emotions
Zaliznyak Anna A. Notes on Metaphor
Zaliznyak Anna A. On the semantics of scrupulousness (« it's a shame», « ashamed» and « uncomfortable» against the background of the Russian language picture of the world). - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Ethical languages. M., 2000
Zaliznyak Anna A. Overcoming space in the Russian language picture of the world: a verb « get". - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Space languages. M., 2000
Krylova T.V. Status rules in naive ethics. - In the book: The word in the text and in the dictionary. Collection of articles dedicated to the seventieth anniversary of Academician Yu.D.Apresyan. M., 2000
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Native spaces. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Space languages. M., 2000
New Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Synonyms. Under the general guidance of Yu.D. Apresyan, vol. 1. M., 1997; issue 2. M., 2000
Rakhilina E.V. Cognitive analysis of subject names. M., 2000

1

The article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of the language picture of the world. The notion of a linguistic picture of the world is considered as one of the ways of conceptualizing reality. An attempt is made to comprehend the originality of the language picture of the world as a way of representing reality in a certain verbal-associative range. The article systematizes the achievements of various areas of research into diverse worldviews, and provides a comprehensive description of the linguistic worldview. Also, universal signs inherent in any picture of the world are revealed. Particular attention is paid to the following phenomenological features of this concept: the status and variety of interpretations of the concept itself, the subject of study and structure, signs and functions of the LCM, the ratio of the individual and the collective, the universal and the nationally specific in it, its dynamic and static aspects, the peculiarities of variation and the typology of linguistic pictures of the world.

language model of the world

plurality of pictures of the world

worldview

Russian language

language picture of the world

1. Burov A. A. Formation of the modern Russian language picture of the world (methods of speech nomination): Philological studies. Monograph [Text] / A. A. Burov. - Pyatigorsk: PSLU Publishing House, 2008. - 319 p.

2. Weisgerber Y. L. Native language and the formation of the spirit [Text] / J. L. Weisgerber. – M.: URSS editorial, 2004. – 232 p.

3. Vorotnikov Yu. L. "Linguistic picture of the world": interpretation of the concept // Information and humanitarian portal "Knowledge. Understanding. Skill" http://www.zpu-journal.ru/gum/new/articles/2007/Vorotnikov/

4. Anna Zaliznyak, A. Key ideas of the Russian language picture of the world [Text] / Anna A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontina, A.D. Shmelev. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2005. - 544 p.

5. Kardanova K.S. Language picture of the world: myths and reality [Text] / K. S. Kardanova // Russian language at school. - 2010. - No. 9. - S. 61-65.

6. Klimkova L. A. Nizhny Novgorod microtoponymy in the language picture of the world: author. diss. … Dr. Philol. Sciences [Text] / L. A. Klimkova. - M., 2008. - 65 p.

7. Kubryakova E.S. Types of language meanings: Semantics of the derived word [Text] / E.S. Kubryakova. – M.: Nauka, 1981. – 200 p.

8. Samoilova G.S. Problems of the linguistic picture of the world in the scientific research of students of the Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University [Text] / G.S. Samoilova // Problems of the picture of the world at the present stage: Collection of articles based on the materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference of Young Scientists. Issue 6. March 14-15, 2007 - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of the National State Pedagogical University, 2007. - P. 281-286.

9. Tolstaya S. M. Motivational semantic models and picture of the world [Text] / S. M. Tolstaya // Russian language in scientific coverage. - 2002. - No. 1(3). - S. 117-126.

10. Fatkullina F. G., Suleymanova A. K. Linguistic picture of the world as a way of conceptualizing reality. Vestnik BashGU. - V.16, No. 3(1). - Ufa, 2011. - S. 1002-1005.

11. Whorf B. L. The relationship of the norms of behavior and thinking to the language [Text] / B. L. Whorf // History of linguistics of the XIX - XX centuries in essays and extracts: in 2 hours. Part II. - M .: Education, 1965. - S. 255-281.

12. Yakovleva E. S. To the description of the Russian language picture of the world [Text] / E. S. Yakovleva // Russian language abroad. - 1996. - No. 1–3. – S. 47-57.

The linguistic picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts of modern linguistics. For the first time, the idea of ​​a special linguistic worldview was expressed by W. von Humboldt, whose teaching arose in line with German classical philosophy at the beginning of the 19th century. And the appearance in linguistics of the concept language picture of the world (hereinafter - YKM) is associated with the practice of compiling ideographic dictionaries and with the problems of the structure and content of lexico-semantic fields, the relationships between them that arose in connection with the fact that a new, anthropocentric approach to language "required the development of new research methods and the expansion of the metalanguage of science » . According to Yu. L Vorotnikov: “The fact that a certain new archetype gradually (and to a certain extent unconsciously) enters the consciousness of linguists, predetermining the direction of the entire set of linguistic studies, seems quite obvious. It is possible, paraphrasing the title of one of Martin Heidegger's articles, to say that for the science of language the "time of the language picture of the world" has come. Humboldt applied the dialectical method to the analysis of language, according to which the world is viewed in development as a contradictory unity of opposites, as a whole, permeated with universal connections and mutual transitions of individual phenomena and their aspects, as a system. It was he who noted that each language in inseparable unity with consciousness creates a subjective image of the objective world. The ideas of V. von Humboldt were picked up by neo-Humboldtians, one of whose representatives, L. Weisgerber, in the thirties of the XX century introduced the term “linguistic picture of the world” (sprachliches Weltbild) into science, noting that spiritual content lives and influences in the language of a particular community, a treasure of knowledge, which is rightly called the picture of the world of a particular language. An important stage in the development of the theory of the language picture of the world is the work of the American ethnolinguists E. Sapir and B. Whorf. E. Sapir and his follower B. Whorf developed a hypothesis known as the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis", which is the theoretical core of ethnolinguistics. According to this theory, the difference in the norms of thinking determines the difference in the norms of behavior in the cultural-historical interpretation. Comparing the Hopi language with the “Central European standard”, S. Whorf seeks to prove that even the basic categories of substance, space, time can be interpreted differently depending on the structure of the qualities of the language: “... the concepts of “time” and “matter” are not given from experience to all people in the same form. They depend on the nature of the language or languages ​​through the use of which they have developed. According to Whorf, we dissect nature in the direction suggested by our native language, and the world appears before us as a kaleidoscopic stream of impressions, which must be organized by our consciousness, and this means mainly by the language system stored in our consciousness. The world is dissected, organized into concepts, and we distribute meanings this way and not otherwise, mainly because we are parties to the agreement that prescribes such a systematization. This agreement is valid for a certain speech community and is fixed in the system of models of our language.

The special interest of linguists in LCM in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries, according to G.S. Samoilova, is caused by “a change in value orientations in education and science; humanization and humanitarization of science as a specific feature of scientific knowledge at the end of the 20th century;<...>strengthening the human factor in the language, addressing the problems of the formation and development of a linguistic personality; attention to the language as a social factor of national identification, as a means of national self-determination; expansion and strengthening of language contacts, leading to a comparison, the imposition of different language systems and the identification of the specifics of national languages ​​and national worldview ". During this period, JCM became the object of analysis by many domestic researchers (Yu. D. Apresyan, N. D. Arutyunova, Yu. N. Karaulov, E. V. Uryson, and others).

Initially emerging as a metaphor, JCM has given rise to many problems in linguistics related to its phenomenological features: it is the status and variety of interpretations of the concept itself, the subject of study and structure, signs and functions of JCM, the ratio of individual and collective, universal and nationally specific in it, its dynamic and static aspects, peculiarities of variation and typology of linguistic pictures of the world.

In linguistics, there are a large number of definitions of JKM, each of them focuses on certain aspects of the designated concept and therefore cannot be a generally accepted term.

The whole variety of interpretations of the concept of JKM can be reduced to two: wide and narrow.

1. So, some linguists (S. Yu. Anshakova, T. I. Vorontsova, L. A. Klimkova, O. A. Kornilov, Z. D. Popova, B. A. Serebrennikov, G. A. Shusharina and others .) understand by JKM "the subjective image of the objective world as a means of representing the conceptual picture of the world, which, however, does not fully cover it, as a result of the linguistic, speech-thinking activity of a multigenerational team over a number of epochs" . JKM are ideas about reality, “which seem to be taken for granted by native speakers of a given language. These ideas, which form a single system of views and prescriptions, are implicitly included in the meanings of linguistic units, so that a native speaker takes them on faith without hesitation and without noticing it.

Other scientists (N. A. Besedina, T. G. Bochina, M. V. Zavyalova, T. M. Nikolaeva, M. V. Pats, R. Kh. Khairullina, E. S. Yakovleva and others) believe that that LKM is “a scheme of perception of reality fixed in the language and specific for a given language community” .

In connection with the above contradiction, no less difficult is the lack of “clarity in understanding the boundaries of what is directly related to linguistic competence.<...>, and what goes beyond the limits of linguistic competence and belongs to consciousness in general or culture in general<...>and is not directly reflected in the language.

As A. A. Burov notes, LCM "includes a dictionary, a set of images fixed in linguistic signs, the speaker's ideostyle, the linguistic ideology of native speakers, the type of associative-verbal reflection of the world" . At the same time, the composition of the NCM components proposed by A.A. Burov can be supplemented. There is no doubt that, in addition to vocabulary - a dictionary, units of other levels of the language are involved in its formation, although most of the research on LCM is based on the material of vocabulary and phraseology.

So, LCM is the reality reflected in the language, the linguistic division of the world, information about the world, transmitted using language units of different levels.

The linguistic picture of the world is created in different ways; the most expressive and vivid, from our point of view, are phraseological units, mythologemes, figurative-metaphorical words, connotative words, etc. First of all, the attention of scientists was attracted by linguo-specific vocabulary and phraseology. Language-specific words are words for which it is difficult to find analogues in other languages.

The analysis of this material allowed Yu.D. Apresyan, E.E. Babaeva, O.Yu. Boguslavskaya, I.V. Galaktionova, L.T. Eloeva, T.V. Zhukova, Anna A. Zaliznyak, L.A. Klimkova, M.L. Kovshova, T.V. Krylov, I.B. Levontina, A.Yu. Malafeev, A.V. Ptentsova, G.V. Tokarev, E.V. Uryson, Yu.V. Khripunkova, A.T. Khrolenko, A.D. Shmelev and other scientists to reconstruct fragments of the YaKM, specific for the Russian vision of the world and Russian culture, to identify a number of cross-cutting motives, key ideas that are consistently repeated in the meaning of such Russian key words and phraseological units as log off(Yu.D. Apresyan, close,following, young,old, meat-empty,syropust, distance,expanse,freedom,expanse,space,restlessness,toil, languish, festivities, maybe, soul, fate, longing, happiness, separation, justice, resentment, reproach, gather, get, try, happened, happened, at the same time, on foot, just in case, etc.. (Anna A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontina, A.D. Shmelev), Russian "duration indicators" moment, minute, instant, instant, second, hour(E.S. Yakovleva) and others.

Our understanding of the world is partially captured by the language picture of the world. Each specific language contains a national, original system that determines the worldview of the speakers of a given language and forms their picture of the world.

The world, reflected through the prism of the mechanism of secondary sensations, captured in metaphors, comparisons, symbols, is the main factor that determines the universality and specificity of any particular national language picture of the world. At the same time, an important circumstance is the distinction between the universal human factor and national specificity in various linguistic pictures of the world.

Thus, the linguistic picture of the world is a set of ideas about the world, historically formed in the ordinary consciousness of a given linguistic community and reflected in the language, a certain way of conceptualizing reality.

The problem of studying the linguistic picture of the world is closely related to the problem of the conceptual picture of the world, which reflects the specifics of a person and his being, his relationship with the world, the conditions of his existence.

For the reconstruction of LCM in linguistics, various linguistic means are used.

The comparative aspect of the language pictures of the world of different peoples from the point of view of vocabulary and phraseology is presented in the works of G. A. Bagautdinova, who studied anthropocentric phraseological units in the Russian and English JKM, H. A. Jahangiri Azar, who compared the YKM of the Russian and Persian languages, M.V. Zavyalova, who revealed the features of the world models of the Russian and Lithuanian peoples on the material of conspiracies, Li Toan Thang, who analyzed the spatial model of the world on the material of the Vietnamese and Russian languages, Yu. phraseological picture of the world of the Russian and Bashkir languages, T. A. Yakovleva, who analyzed substantive polysemy as a source of study of YKM on the material of German and Spanish.

The role of the tropics in the formation of the JCM was also studied (A.V. Blagovidova, E.V. Vasilyeva, V.A. Plungyan, I.V. Sorokina, V.N. Teliya, E.A. Yurina, etc.).

The linguistic picture of the world can be reconstructed using the data of the word-formation system. So, E.S. Kubryakova studied the role of word formation in the formation of JKM. CM. Kolesnikova revealed the features of the content of the gradual fragment of the Russian YaKM. General problems of gradual semantics are analyzed by S.M. Kolesnikova, taking into account word-building means of expressing varying degrees of magnitude of a sign, action, object or phenomenon.

Grammatical means, according to linguists, are also extremely important in the formation of ICM. The attention of linguists was attracted by the connections of the semantics of different parts of speech with the LCM (I.Yu. Grineva, I.M. Kobozeva, A.G., L.B. Lebedeva), the role of individual grammatical and lexico-grammatical categories in the linguistic way of reflecting reality (O F. Zholobov, O.S. Ilchenko, N.Yu. Lukina, reflection of the Russian language picture of the world in vocabulary and grammar, reflection of YKM in the syntactic constructions of different languages ​​(E.V. Agafonova, L.G. Babenko, A.A. . Burov and others).

JKM from the point of view of text organization was considered by I.R. Galperin, E.I. Dibrova, I.P. Karlyavina, S.D. Katsnelson, L.M. Loseva, E.I. Matveeva, T.M. Nikolaev and others.

Finally, when reconstructing LCM, a number of scientists, in addition to the facts of language, take into account any texts of culture, considering concepts and general semantic categories of language to be the main components of LCM. So, A.P. Babushkin K. Duysekova singled out the types of concepts in the lexical and phraseological system of the language, Z.D. Popova - in the syntax.

JCM has a complex typology. With regard to linguistics, the picture of the world should represent a systematized plan of the language. As you know, any language performs a number of functions: the function of communication (communicative), the function of communication (informative), the function of influence (emotive) and the function of fixing and storing the entire complex of knowledge and ideas of a given language community about the world. The result of understanding the world by each of the types of consciousness is fixed in the matrices of the language that serves this type of consciousness. In addition, the picture of the world contains an ethnic component, which is represented by a linguistic picture of the world, as well as a set of traditions, beliefs, and superstitions. Thus, one should talk about the plurality of pictures of the world: about the scientific linguistic picture of the world, the linguistic picture of the world of the national language, the linguistic picture of the world of an individual, the phraseological picture of the world, the ethnic picture of the world, etc.

According to L. A. Klimkova, “YKM, being an invariant, is a system of fragments (private YKM) - ethnic, territorial (regional), social, individual, reflecting the perception and understanding of the surrounding world by a person as a representative of an ethnic group, a certain territory (region) , society, as a person".

In turn, the ethnic YKM also includes private fragments. These can be regional YCLs within the national YCL and dialectal JCLs with regional JCLs within it. From the standpoint of sociolinguistics, the Soviet ideological YKM (T.V. Shkaiderova), elitist and mass YKM (S.M. Belyakova) are studied. From the point of view of the level approach to language learning, the phraseological JKM of T.M. Filonenko, R.Kh. Khairullin.

In addition to scientific and naive pictures of the world, a national linguistic picture of the world stands out. As you know, the role of language is not only in the transmission of a message, but also in the internal organization of what is to be communicated, as a result of which a “space of meanings” appears (in the terminology of A.N. Leontiev), i.e. the knowledge about the world fixed in the language, where the national and cultural experience of a particular linguistic community is certainly intertwined. It is in the content side of the language (to a lesser extent in grammar) that the picture of the world of a given ethnic group is revealed, which becomes the foundation of all cultural stereotypes.

There are as many national language pictures of the world as there are languages. Some scholars argue that the national picture of the world is impenetrable to foreign-language consciousness, it is assumed that the use of such words as knowability and comprehensibility is the most successful, since it is possible to know the national linguistic picture of the world of a native speaker of another language only by consciously excluding one's own picture of the world from the equivalents, using the principle " presumption of ignorance” (G. D. Gachev). We believe that the national picture of the world can be considered a reflection of the national character and mentality.

Reviewers:

Peshkova N. P., Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Foreign Languages ​​of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Bashkir State University, Ufa.

Ibragimova V.L., Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor of the Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics, Bashkir State University, Ufa.

Bibliographic link

Gabbasova A.R., Fatkullina F.G. LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD: MAIN FEATURES, TYPOLOGY AND FUNCTIONS // Modern problems of science and education. - 2013. - No. 4.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=9954 (date of access: 04/06/2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

The concept of a picture of the world is one of the significant concepts that reveal the nature of man and his existence, relations with the world, as well as the basic conditions of his life. Pictures of the world of different nations differ from each other, since each nation has its own vision of the world and ideas about it.

The term picture of the world can be found in various areas of the natural and human sciences. In modern science, this term plays an important role, so its precise definition is necessary. The free interpretation of this concept leads to misunderstanding between representatives of various disciplines, disagreement in the description of the picture of the world. This concept is widely used in linguistics and cultural studies, which predetermines the importance of studying this term.

In different branches of science, one can come across such terms as a physical picture of the world, a religious picture of the world, a scientific picture of the world, a cultural picture of the world, a conceptual picture of the world, therefore, in a broad sense, the picture of the world (hereinafter referred to as CM) is a complex of basic concepts and information about the world in some or science.

In a narrower sense, CM is understood as the initial global image of the world that underlies the human worldview and is the result of all human spiritual activity. The concept of CM is based on the study of human ideas about the world. If the world is the relationship between a person and his environment, then KM is the result of processing information about the environment and the person.

The term KM was introduced in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Austrian philosopher and logician Ludwig Wittgenstein. One of the first who began to use this term was G. Hertz. He considered the physical picture of the world and understood it as a set of internal images and external objects, from which information can be obtained in a logical way regarding the behavior of these objects.

In linguistics, the concept of KM appeared in the second half of the 20th century and is associated with such names as Yu.D. Apresyan, A.A. Zalevskaya, G.V. Kolshansky, B.A. Serebrennikov. Despite this, the idea that language is a means of interpreting the surrounding world, that the languages ​​of different peoples demonstrate different ideas about the world, was expressed at the beginning of the 19th century by W. von Humboldt. He believed that the language expresses the life of the people, and also reveals the history of their culture, both material and spiritual. The researcher advocated the relationship between the spiritual originality of the people and the structure of the language they speak. He believed that language is one of those phenomena that stimulate human spiritual strength to constant activity.

In modern linguistics, the concept of a linguistic picture of the world (hereinafter referred to as LCM) is widely used, which is associated with the name of Leo Weisgerber, a German linguist and leader of the neo-Humboldtian trend. He created his theory of JKM based on the research of W. von Humboldt. Leo Weisgerber concluded that the vocabulary of any language consists not only of a complex of linguistic signs, but also of a certain set of mental means that the human community possesses. As the vocabulary of a native speaker is replenished, all representatives of the linguistic community learn these mental means. It can be noted that any language endows its concepts with a certain picture of the world so that each person can comprehend it. The scientist wrote that language allows a person to combine all experience into a single picture of the world and makes him forget how earlier, before he learned the language, he perceived the world around him. The study of LCM makes it possible to analyze the problem of the interaction of language and the reality surrounding a person, as well as the difficult process of interpreting reality by a person.

Language is a significant component of any picture of the world. It reflects the mentality of the people, their social structure, outlook on life and, more importantly, their culture. The language preserves the sociocultural experience accumulated by the people, which is the most important and effective way for the development of the next generations of its speakers. Moreover, language plays a significant role in the formation and consolidation of human ideas about the world.

Problem language - culture is one of the most important in linguistics. Her research achieved great results in the 20th century, when it became possible to uncover the connection between language, culture and thought. Each nation has a special national culture, which is preserved and transmitted from generation to generation through the language. A stable CM is created by ideas about various events, phenomena and objects that a person repeatedly encounters. V.A. Maslova argues that it is this CM that is the source of the formation of various cultural stereotypes. Human activity has unique and universal features, so the problem of studying CM is interconnected with national originality and characteristic features of a particular language.

The impetus for further study of the relationship between language, culture and thinking was the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which served as material for the modern approach to the study of this problem. It consists in the fact that language is the basis of the CM that directly arises in any person and organizes a huge number of objects and phenomena of the reality around us. In addition, American linguists argue that people see the world differently - through the prism of their native language, that language is not just a tool for reproducing thoughts, it itself forms our thoughts. The main provisions of this approach:

1) language is one of the components of culture that is passed down from generation to generation;

2) language is the main means by which people learn culture;

3) language is a significant phenomenon of culture, therefore its comprehension can be carried out only with the help of natural language.

A person, being a bearer of the language of culture, perceives and comprehends the surrounding reality with the help of the senses, while he builds his own image of the world, which is realized in concepts, views and conclusions. It follows that the link between the real world and language is thinking.

JKM is a complex phenomenon, therefore different scientists and linguists define it in their own way. G.V. Kolshansky believes that JKM is a body of knowledge about the world. According to A.A. Zaliznyak, JKM is a set of ideas about the surrounding reality, which has historically been formed in the everyday consciousness of the language community and which is expressed in the language. V.A. Maslova is of the opinion that JKM is a body of knowledge about the world, captured in vocabulary, phraseology, and grammar. This complex of ideas about the surrounding reality, placed in the semantics of various words and turns of speech of a given language, forms a system of beliefs or attitudes. The representations that make up the CM are part of the semantics of words in a latent form. A person believes them without thinking, often without even paying attention to it. Using words that contain a hidden meaning, a person recognizes the vision of the world contained in them. On the other hand, the semantic elements included in the semantics of words and expressions as natural statements can become a subject of disagreement between different native speakers, so they are not part of the general stock of representations that forms the LCM.

Any language demonstrates a certain way of understanding and organizing the world. The meanings manifested in the language form a certain complex of views, which turns out to be common to all native speakers. The way of understanding and organizing the world inherent in one language is to some extent universal, but to a greater extent it has national specific features. It follows that representatives of different peoples, speaking different languages, can perceive the real world, the surrounding reality differently. This means that language proficiency implies the ability to evaluate the reality expressed in the language in a different way, i.e. perceive a different JKM.

When comparing different JCMs, similarities and differences between them are revealed. It is important to note that the representations that form the QM are expressed implicitly. Using different words, expressions, a person instinctively accepts the idea of ​​the world contained in words. In addition, there are many factors that determine the differences in the JKM of different peoples. Among them are: 1) living conditions of people; 2) various kinds of norms and values; 3) the unique cognitive experience of the people.

JKM determines the form of a person's relationship to everything that surrounds him (animals, birds, nature in general). It establishes the norms of human behavior and forms his attitude to the world. The JCM of a person develops throughout life, starting from the preverbal stage. Next, the verbalization of the results of comprehension and accumulation of information about the world is carried out. The individual CM of each person can change over time.

YKM is created by all native speakers. Each individual must express his thoughts based on this collective CM. Moreover, in the center of the JKM there is always a person and everything that is closely connected with him. According to E. Benveniste, the language was created according to the measure of a person, and this scale is imprinted in the very organization of the language, in accordance with it, the language should be studied.

In order to fully reveal the concept of JKM, it is necessary to compare it with other KM, to determine the features that distinguish them from each other. In modern science, JCM is strictly differentiated from the conceptual picture of the world (hereinafter referred to as CCM). KKM is richer than linguistic and is a more complex phenomenon. It may vary depending on gender, age, field of activity or belonging to different social groups of people. According to A.S. Gerda, the conceptual model of the world is made up of groups and classes of concepts. Despite the differences, JKM and KKM are in close interaction and cannot exist without each other. LCM depicts a model of the surrounding reality with the help of linguistic means, and CCM describes a model of the world built on the basis of human feelings and memory. Without communication with CCM, language would not be able to perform a communicative function. He reveals the meaning of CCM with the help of words, organizing them into speech. As Yu.D. Apresyan: each natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and conceptualizing the world.

Also of interest is the relationship between JCM and the scientific picture of the world (hereinafter referred to as SCM). According to B. Whorf, both CMs are systems for analyzing the surrounding world. Therefore, JKM and NCM are connected with the modeling of the world. In addition, they are created only by linguistic communities, initially formed in the public mind, and then changed in the minds of each member of this community. The difference between the two pictures is that LCM is the result of the actions of native speakers, it reveals ordinary consciousness, is contained in the language of communities that reveal its specific features and characteristics. NCM is a product of the activity of researchers, it shows scientific consciousness, is contained in a certain complex of scientific knowledge.

The features of any culture are reflected in the cultural picture of the world, which is created in the process of the origin and existence of the culture itself. The cultural picture of the world is a complex of knowledge and ideas about the worldview, norms, habits, values ​​and mentality of both one's own and another's culture. All this emphasizes the individuality and exclusivity of each culture and makes it possible to distinguish one culture from another. JKM shows reality with the help of a cultural picture of the world, which is richer and deeper than the linguistic one.

Thus, we can say that language is not only a means of transmitting a message, but also serves to form knowledge about the world. The JKM includes information that is enshrined in vocabulary, grammar, phraseology. YKM is unique for each nation and is connected with other KM, but it is she who emphasizes the originality of the people and their life.