MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF UKRAINE

DONETSK STATE UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

CORRESPONDENCE FACULTY

on the topic: "Language and its role in culture"

Performed:

Art. gr. FIR - 05 (d)

Tkachenko N. A.

Donetsk 2007

Introduction

1. The concept and essence of language.

The concept of language in various philosophical systems.

Language functions.

2. Consciousness and language.

Language as a means of communication and mutual understanding of people.

Unity of language and consciousness.

3. Language and its role in culture.

List of used literature.

Introduction

Language and thinking are inextricably linked, no one doubts this. Language, as the most important sign system, is a necessary condition for the emergence of thinking, a form of its existence and a way of functioning. In the process of development of the human community and its culture, thinking and language are formed into a single speech-thinking complex, which is the basis of most cultural formations and communicative reality.

The problem of the emergence and development of language, as well as its role in the process of the formation of mankind, has worried all generations of philosophers, and at the present stage of philosophy we can talk about the most interesting theories in the philosophy of language (L. Wittgenstein, E. Cassirer, K. Aidukevich).

The role of language in the formation of civilization and its significance for the cognitive and creative activity of man determined the relevance of this work.

1. The concept and essence of language

1.1 The concept of language in various philosophical systems.

Language is a sign system used for the purposes of communication and cognition. The systemic nature of the language is expressed in the presence in each language, in addition to the dictionary, of syntax and semantics. The nature and meaning of a linguistic sign cannot be understood outside the linguistic system.

All languages ​​can be divided into natural, artificial and partially artificial. The former arise spontaneously in the process of communication between members of a certain social group (for example, ethnic languages); the latter are created by people for special purposes (for example, the languages ​​of mathematics, logic, ciphers, etc.). The languages ​​of the natural sciences and the humanities are partly artificial. A characteristic feature of artificial languages ​​is the unambiguous certainty of their vocabulary, rules of formation and meaning. These languages ​​are genetically and functionally secondary to natural language; the former arise on the basis of the latter and can only function in connection with it.

There are two opposing points of view on the question of the relation of language to reality. According to the first of these, language is the product of an arbitrary convention; in the choice of its rules, as well as in the choice of the rules of the game, a person is not limited by anything, due to which all languages ​​with a clearly defined structure are equal in rights (R. Carnap's principle of tolerance). According to the second point of view, language is connected with reality and its analysis allows revealing some general facts about the world.

The conventionalist conception of language was accepted by many representatives of neopositivist philosophy. It is based on an exaggeration of the similarity of natural languages ​​with artificial ones and on an erroneous interpretation of a number of facts concerning these languages.

Thinking is one of the forms of reflection of reality. Language, which is a tool of thinking, is also connected by its semantic side with reality and reflects it in a peculiar way. This is manifested in the conditionality of the development of language by the development of human cognition, in the socio-historical genesis of language forms, in the success of practice based on information obtained through language.

A very common thesis is that our knowledge of the world depends on the language used in the process of learning. The idea of ​​language as one of the forms of manifestation of the “spirit of the people” (W. Humboldt) or the realization of the human ability to symbolize (E. Cassirer), the statement about the distortion of the results of direct cognition in the process of their expression (A. Bergson) leads to various forms of this thesis. , E. Husserl). The principle of the inevitable dependence of the picture of the world on the choice of the conceptual apparatus, together with the provision on the absence of restrictions in this choice, constitutes the essence of "radical conventionalism" adopted by K. Aidukevich.

The provisions on the connection of language with thinking and reality allow us to find the correct solution to the question of the role of language in cognition. Language is a necessary tool for displaying reality by a person, influencing the way of its perception and cognition and improving in the process of this cognition. The active role of language in cognition lies in the fact that it affects the level of abstract thinking, the possibility and method of raising questions about reality and getting answers to these questions. The statement that language is an active factor in the formation of our picture of the world, however, does not mean that language "creates" this picture, nor that it determines the fundamental boundaries of the possibilities of cognition. Language not only influences cognition, but is itself formed in the process of cognition of reality as a means of its adequate reflection.

Philosophers and logicians have repeatedly called attention to the errors resulting from the misuse and imperfection of natural language, and called for caution in its use. The most radical of them demanded the creation of some "perfect" language (G. Leibniz, B. Russell). Modern linguistic philosophy has taken the form of the proposition that language should be the subject of philosophical inquiry that language is the only, or at any rate the most important, subject of such inquiry. Philosophy turned out to be reduced to a "criticism of language", the task of which is to make vague and confused thoughts clear and clearly separated from each other. Within the framework of linguistic philosophy, two directions have developed: one of them aims at the logical improvement of natural language and the replacement of its individual fragments with specially constructed languages ​​(reconstructionism); the second focuses on the study of how natural language functions, tries to give the most complete description of its properties and thereby eliminate the difficulties associated with its incorrect use (descriptionism).

The analysis of language is not, however, the sole task of philosophy and cannot be reduced to the clarification of its logical structure. Language is connected with thinking and reality and cannot be understood outside of this connection. It must be considered in the context of a whole range of problems related to cognition and communication; not only logical, but also epistemological and social problems of language are important.

1.2 Functions of the language.

The idea of ​​making a distinction between the functions of language is accepted in most theories of language; it is implemented, however, in different ways.

The opposition of the referential (denoting) use of language to its emotive (expressing) use, introduced in the 1920s by C. Ogden and A. Richards, became widely known.

It is also common to single out the following two language functions: the formulation of thoughts in the process of cognition and communication of these thoughts, as well as the experiences associated with them. The first of these functions is sometimes considered an extreme case of the second, that is, thinking is considered as communication with oneself.

K. Buhler, considering the signs of the language in their relation to the speaker, listener and the subject of the statement, identifies three functions of the language statement: informative, expressive and evocative. In the first case, language is used to formulate true or false statements; with the second - to express the states of consciousness of the speaker; with the third - to influence the listener, to excite in him certain thoughts, assessments, aspirations for some kind of action. Each linguistic utterance performs all three of these tasks simultaneously; the difference between the three functions of the language is determined by which of these tasks is dominant. Thus, a statement of fact, which is a typical case of informative use of language, directly describes the state of affairs in reality, indirectly expresses the speaker's experience of his experience, and evokes certain thoughts and feelings in the hearer. The main function of the command, which is a characteristic example of evocative language use, is to cause a certain action of the hearer, but the command also provides information about the activity being prescribed and expresses the desire or will of the speaker for the activity to be performed. The exclamation directly expresses the emotions of the speaker, and indirectly affects the listener and gives him information about the state of consciousness of the speaker.

The allocation of linguistic functions depends on the purposes for which the opposition of the uses of linguistic statements is used, and therefore may be different in different cases. Logically, it is important to distinguish between the two main functions of language: descriptive and evaluative. In the first case, the starting point for comparing the statement and reality is the real situation, and the statement acts as its description, characterized in terms of the concepts of "true" and "false". With the second function, the original statement is a statement that acts as a standard, perspective, plan; the correspondence of the situation to him is characterized in terms of the concepts of "good", "indifferent" and "bad". The purpose of description is to make the words fit the world, the purpose of evaluation is to make the world fit the words. These are two opposite functions, not reducible to each other. There is also no reason to believe that the descriptive function is primary or more fundamental than the evaluation function.

Description and evaluation are two poles between which there are many transitions. Both in everyday language and in the language of science, there are many varieties of both descriptions and assessments. Pure descriptions and pure evaluations are quite rare, most linguistic expressions are of a dual, or “mixed”, descriptive-evaluative nature. All this must be taken into account when studying the many "language-games" or uses of language; it is likely that the set of such "games" is, as L. Wittgenstein supposed, unlimited. But one must also take into account the fact that a more subtle analysis of the use of language moves within the framework of the initial and fundamental opposition of descriptions and evaluations and is only its detailing. It can be useful in many areas, in particular in linguistics, but most likely it is devoid of interest in logic.

2. Consciousness and language

2.1 Language as a means of communication and mutual understanding of people.

Language is as ancient as consciousness. Animals have no consciousness in the human sense of the word. They do not have a language equal to human. The little that animals want to communicate to each other does not require speech. Many animals lead a herd and pack lifestyle, have vocal organs, for example, chimpanzees can make 32 sounds. A complex signaling system is seen in dolphins. Animals also have mimic-gestural means of mutual signaling. Thus, it is considered established that bees have a special signaling system consisting of various spatial figures. By combining various figures into a whole dance (i.e., thanks to a special “syntax”), the bee “tells” the whole swarm about the location of the food source it has found and about the way to it.

However, all these means of signaling have a fundamental difference from human speech: they serve as an expression of a subjective state caused by hunger, thirst, fear, etc. (a partial analogue of this is interjections in human language), or a simple indication (a partial analogue is a pointing gesture of a person), or a call for joint action, or a warning about danger, etc. (partial analogue - exclamations, hails, screams, etc.). Animal language never achieves in its function the act of placing some abstract meaning as the quality of the object of communication. The content of animal communication is always the present situation at the moment. Human speech, along with consciousness, “broke away” from its situationality. People have a need to say something to each other. This need is realized due to the appropriate structure of the brain and peripheral speech apparatus. The sound from the expression of emotions has turned into a means of designating the images of objects, their properties and relationships.

The essence of language is revealed in its dual function: to serve as a means of communication and an instrument of thought. Speech is an activity, the very process of communication, the exchange of thoughts, feelings, wishes, goal-setting, etc., which is carried out with the help of language, i.e. certain system of means of communication. Language is a system of meaningful, meaningful forms: every word shines with rays of meaning. Through the language of thought, the emotions of individuals are transformed from their personal property into the public, into the spiritual wealth of the whole society. Thanks to language, a person perceives the world not only with his sense organs and thinks not only with his brain, but with the sense organs and the brain of all people whose experience he has perceived with the help of language. Keeping in itself the spiritual values ​​of society, being a material form of condensation and storage of the ideal moments of human consciousness, language plays the role of a mechanism of social heredity.

The exchange of thoughts, experiences with the help of language consists of two closely related processes: the expression of thoughts (and the entire wealth of the human spiritual world) by the speaker or writer and the perception, understanding of these thoughts, feelings by the listener or reader. (It is necessary to keep in mind the individual characteristics of those who communicate with the help of a word: those who read the same thing read different things.)

A person can express his thoughts in a variety of ways. Thoughts and feelings are expressed in actions, deeds of a person, in what and how a person does. Whatever other means thoughts are expressed, they are ultimately translated into verbal language in one way or another - a universal means among the sign systems used by man, acting as a universal interpreter. So, it is impossible, bypassing the language, to “translate” a piece of music, say, into a mathematical form. This special position of language among all communication systems is due to its connection with thought, which produces the content of all messages delivered through any sign system.

The proximity of thinking and language, their close relationship leads to the fact that thought receives its adequate (or closest to such) expression precisely in language. A thought that is clear in content and harmonious in form is expressed in intelligible and consistent speech. “He who thinks clearly, speaks clearly,” says folk wisdom.

What does it mean to perceive and understand the expressed thought? By itself, it is intangible. Thought cannot be perceived by the senses: it cannot be seen, heard, touched, or tasted. The expression “people exchange thoughts through speech” should not be taken literally. The listener feels and perceives the material appearance of words in their connection, and is aware of what they express - thoughts. And this awareness depends on the level of culture of the listener, the reader. Mutual understanding occurs only if in the brain of the listener there are (due to the corresponding image - meaning attached to a certain word during language learning) the ideas and thoughts that the speaker expresses. In science, this principle of communication is called the principle of hinting, according to which the thought is not transmitted in speech, but is only induced (as if excited) in the mind of the listener, leading to incomplete reproduction of information. Hence the theories in which the possibility of a complete mutual understanding of those who communicate is fundamentally rejected.

Turning to other people, the speaker does not just tell them his thoughts and feelings, he encourages them to do certain actions, convinces them of something, orders, advises, dissuades them from any actions, etc. The word is a great power. A sharp word is the only cutting weapon that becomes even sharper with constant use. And sometimes we do not know what fatal consequences are hidden in our words. Let us recall the words of the famous Aesop: language is the best and worst thing in the world - with the help of language we think, communicate, share grief and joy, bring good to people, but with its help we bring evil to people. He is a tool that can hurt and even kill. According to the figurative expression of G. Heine, just as a shot arrow, having parted with a bowstring, gets out of the control of the shooter, so the word that has flown from the mouth no longer belongs to the one who said it.

2.2 Unity of language and consciousness.

Consciousness and language form a unity: in their existence they presuppose each other, just as an internal, logically formed ideal content presupposes its external material form. Language is the direct activity of thought, of consciousness. He participates in the process of mental activity as its sensual basis or tool. Consciousness is not only revealed, but also formed with the help of language. Our thoughts are built in accordance with our language and must correspond to it. The reverse is also true: we organize our speech in accordance with the logic of our thought. The connection between consciousness and language is not mechanical, but organic. They cannot be separated from each other without destroying both.

Through the language there is a transition from perception and ideas to concepts, the process of operating with concepts takes place. In speech, a person fixes his thoughts, feelings and, thanks to this, has the opportunity to subject them to analysis as an ideal object lying outside him. By expressing his thoughts and feelings, a person clarifies them himself more clearly: he understands himself only after testing the intelligibility of his words on others. It is not for nothing that they say: if a thought arises, it is necessary to state it, then it will become clearer, and the stupidity contained in it will be more obvious. Language and consciousness are one. In this unity, the determining side is consciousness, thinking: being a reflection of reality, it “sculpts” forms and dictates the laws of its linguistic existence. Through consciousness and practice, the structure of language ultimately reflects, albeit in a modified form, the structure of being. But unity is not identity: consciousness reflects reality, and language designates it and expresses it in thought.

Language and consciousness form a contradictory unity. Language affects consciousness: its historically established norms, specific to each nation, shade different features in the same object. For example, the style of thinking in German philosophical culture is different than, say, in French, which to a certain extent also depends on the characteristics of the national languages ​​of these peoples. However, the dependence of thinking on language is not absolute, as some linguists believe: thinking is determined mainly by its connections with reality, while language can only partially modify the form and style of thinking.

Language influences consciousness, thinking, and in the sense that it gives thought a certain coercion, exercises a kind of “tyranny” over thought, directs its movement through the channels of linguistic forms, as if driving into their general framework constantly iridescent, changeable, individually unique, emotional thoughts.

But not everything can be expressed in language. The secrets of the human soul are so deep that they are inexpressible in ordinary human language: poetry, music, and the whole arsenal of symbolic means are needed here.

A person receives information not only with the help of ordinary language, but also through a variety of events in the outside world. Smoke signals that a fire is burning. But the same smoke takes on the character of a conventional sign if people have agreed in advance that it will mean, for example, "dinner is ready." A sign is a material object, process, action that acts as a representative of something else in communication and is used to acquire, store, transform and transmit information. Sign systems have arisen and are developing as a material form in which consciousness, thinking are carried out, information processes are realized in society, and in our time in technology. The meaning of signs refers to the information about things, properties and relationships that is transmitted with their help. Meaning is a reflection of objective reality expressed in the material form of a sign. It includes both conceptual and sensual and emotional components, volitional urges, requests - in a word, the entire sphere of the psyche, consciousness.

The original sign system is a normal, natural language. Among non-linguistic signs, copy signs stand out (photographs, fingerprints, prints of fossil animals and plants, etc.); signs-signs (chills - a symptom of the disease, a cloud - a harbinger of the approach of rain, etc.); signal signs (factory horn, bell, applause, etc.); signs and symbols (for example, a double-headed eagle symbolizes Russian statehood); communication signs - the totality of natural and artificial languages. The signs of artificial systems include, for example, various code systems (Morse code, codes used in compiling programs for computers), formula signs, various schemes, a traffic signaling system, etc. Any sign functions only in the corresponding system. The structure and functioning of sign systems is studied by semiotics.

The development of sign systems is determined by the needs of the development of science, technology, art and social practice. The use of special symbols, especially artificial systems, formulas, creates enormous advantages for science. For example, the use of signs that form formulas makes it possible to record the connections of thoughts in an abbreviated form, to communicate on an international scale. Artificial sign systems, including intermediary languages ​​used in technology, are an addition to natural languages ​​and exist only on their basis.

3. Language and its role in culture.

Human language is commonly referred to as the “second signaling system”. It arose historically in the process of development of communication and culture, as a tool for understanding and transforming the world. The main distinguishing feature of the second signaling system is that, operating with conventional signs-symbols and sentences made up of them, a person can go beyond the boundaries of instincts and develop knowledge unlimited in scope and variety.

It is interesting that all attempts to teach the great apes a spoken language were unsuccessful, since the sound apparatus of animals is not able to reproduce the various articulate sounds of human speech, but it was possible to teach several chimpanzees to use a number of deaf-mute language gestures. Such experiments only confirm the fact that human speech in its modern form did not appear immediately, but went through a long and difficult path in the formation of culture, accompanying this process, developing along with it.

From ancient times to the present day, people often attribute magical meaning, magical meaning to the names of people and the names of objects. Many peoples, for example, have preserved the tradition of giving a person many names, including one that was not pronounced: it was considered genuine and real. Forbidden to use was considered in some religious beliefs, for example, among the Tibetans or Jews, "the real name of God." People believed that knowing the name of something or someone gives a certain power over the bearer of this name. No wonder Adam, the first thing he did after his creation, gave names to everything that surrounded him, for God, according to the Bible, appointed him to “own everything”.

Any culture relies, like the biblical Adam, on the distribution of “names” to all objects and phenomena of the world. Culture finds bright, memorable names that allow you to recreate images of missing objects in memory, creates a huge system of meanings, thanks to which you can distinguish, differentiate shades of perceptions and experiences of the outside world, develop a complex hierarchy of assessments, in which the experience of many generations is concentrated. To give a name to an object means to take the first step towards its knowledge. And, consequently, language performs an epistemological function in culture, which will be discussed in detail below.

It is only thanks to language that the very existence of culture and thinking is possible, as a fundamental factor in its formation and functioning. A number of anthropologists believe that the Neanderthal, who lived 200-40 thousand years ago, due to the underdeveloped speech centers of the brain, as evidenced by the analysis of the remains found by archaeologists, was almost unable to speak. However, the data of archaeological excavations also testify to the fact that during this period dwellings were built, driven hunting was carried out, i.e. there was a certain rather effective means of communication that made it possible to carry out joint actions without becoming like the builders of the Tower of Babel. A comparison of these data allows us to conclude that language as a means of communication is being formed in the human community gradually, which is reflected in the very physiological structure of the “speaking person”.

Conclusion.

Language is a sign system used for the purposes of communication and cognition. Language is a necessary tool for displaying reality by a person, influencing the way of its perception and cognition and improving in the process of this cognition. The allocation of linguistic functions depends on the purposes for which the opposition of the uses of linguistic statements is used, and therefore may be different in different cases. Logically, it is important to distinguish between the two main functions of language: descriptive and evaluative.

Consciousness and language form a unity: in their existence they presuppose each other, just as an internal, logically formed ideal content presupposes its external material form. Language is the direct activity of thought, of consciousness.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE:

1. Polivanov E.D. Articles on general linguistics. M.1968.

2. Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1967

3. Philosophy. Textbook for universities / under the general. edited by V. V. Mironov. - M .: "Norma", 2000

4. Spirkin A. G. Philosophy. Textbook for universities. - M .: "Gadariki", 2000

5. Fundamentals of Philosophy: Textbook for universities / Hand. author. coll. and resp. ed. E.V. Popov. - M.: Humanit. Publishing Center VLADOS, 1997.

6. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: Nauka, 1998

Language and culture

Language is an inseparable part of the entire cultural society, as well as each person separately. It is known that the main difference between people and animals is the presence of verbal language communication. Every baby begins to learn to speak. If suddenly he has any disorders associated with the lack of speech, he suffers greatly from this, as if he “falls out” of ordinary life. In this case, the conversational language is replaced by another language - gestures. That is, language is a means of communication. We all know that with the help of language people began to communicate with each other, it was extremely necessary. At first they were explained by separate interjections, then by a set of certain specific words. With the further development of man and the language developed, it became more complicated and improved. Scientists have proven that language plays a very important role in the development of human thinking. The more competently he speaks, the more multifaceted, richer and deeper his thinking is.

Language is a whole and very valuable system with numerous branches (for example, professional and youth jargon).

For a more complete study of the language, there is a special discipline, with the study of norms, types of communication, principles and rules, ethical standards of communication, functional styles of speech, the basics of the art of speech. The program includes a study of the difficulties in applying these norms and the problems of modern speech culture in society.

The tasks and goals of the discipline include:

1. Consolidate and improve the skills of mastering all the norms of the language.
2. To form the communicative competence of specialists;
3. To train and prepare future specialists for communication (professional) in this specialty;
4. Develop search skills, as well as be able to evaluate information.
5. Develop speech skills that will be needed in the future for discussions or negotiations).
6. To improve the culture of colloquial speech, to teach all the means of speech, in order to maintain or establish friendly relations with the interlocutor.

People who speak the same language sometimes do not always understand each other because of the use of dialect or jargon in conversation. But all representatives of the Russian nation have a single base, the words collected in which are understandable to everyone. Thanks to this set of words (literary language), people communicate with each other and always understand the interlocutor.

Russian is considered the most complex and rich language, it has a long history of development. It includes the greatest poets and writers. By introducing their changes and transformations, they, in turn, helped the language develop. There are a large number of such names, these are: Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov, who created a whole theory with the name "Three Calms", and N.M. Karamzin (“Graceful Salon Speech”) Thanks to literary works, the Russian language “came to life, only A.S. Pushkin is worth it!

It follows from the foregoing that language was able to give rise to such an art form as literature in the most direct way. All shades of experiences, moods and feelings expressed in the works, the authors were able to convey only thanks to the great Russian language and its ability to accurately express. It has become an integral part of our culture.

       Language is the totality of all the words of the people and their correct combination to convey their thoughts (D.).
       Language is any system of signs suitable for serving as a means of communication between individuals (M.).
& NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP Language - Historically established system of sounding, vocabulary and grammatical agents, objective work of thinking and being an instrument of communication, exchange of thoughts and mutual understanding of people in society (O.).

       So, all the definitions of representatives of different eras, countries and schools converge on the main thing: language is a means of communication, a means of expressing thoughts. Of course, it has other functions, but these two are the most basic. Language serves communication, it is the main, most explicit, most official and socially recognized of all types of communicative behavior. "Language is a communicative process in its purest form in every society known to us."
       Communication is an act of communication, a connection between two or more individuals based on mutual understanding; communication of information by one person to another or a number of persons (I.).
       Communication - communication, communication (O.).

       The situation is much more complicated with the definition of the word-concept "culture".
       The word culture, unfortunately, has many meanings in all European languages. “Unfortunately” refers only to the terminological use of this word (the terms must be unambiguous, otherwise the transfer of scientific information is difficult), since the ambiguity of words is not a drawback, but a richness of the language. Thanks to it, stylistic games, linguistic polyphony and, accordingly, a wider range of linguistic expression are possible.
       So, definition of culture.
       The Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language gives seven meanings of this word, of which the first four are important to us (the last three are special agricultural, bacteriological, etc. terms):
       1. The totality of the achievements of human society in industrial, social and spiritual life. material culture.
Definition of the English word culture:

& NBSP & NBSP The term culture is borrowed from the technical dictionary of anthropology, according to which it covers the entire lifestyle of members of society, as far as the community requires.
       In all English definitions of the word culture the word customs "customs, traditions" is repeated; repeatedly used the word beliefs "beliefs", as well as the phrase the way of life "way of life".
       The definition of intercultural communication is obvious from the term itself: it is the communication of people representing different cultures.
       In the book of E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov "Language and Culture" the following definition is given:        Intercultural communication. This term refers to an adequate mutual understanding of two participants in a communicative act belonging to different national cultures.

       Let us now dwell on the relationship between language and culture.
& NBSP & NBSP Language - Culture Mirror & NBSP & NBSP is reflected not only by the real world surrounding man, not only the real conditions of his life, but also the public self-consciousness of the people, his mentality, national character, lifestyle, traditions, customs, morality, value system, and a world vision of the world.
       Language is a treasury, a storeroom, a treasury of culture. It stores cultural values ​​- in vocabulary, in grammar, in idioms, in proverbs, sayings, in folklore, in fiction and scientific literature, in forms of written and oral speech.
& NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP Language - Transmitter, Culture Media, He transfers the treasures of the national culture stored in it, from generation to generation. While mastering their native language, children learn along with it the generalized cultural experience of previous generations.
       Language is a tool, an instrument of culture. It forms the personality of a person, a native speaker, through the vision of the world imposed on him by the language and embedded in the language, mentality, attitude towards people, etc., that is, through the culture of the people using this language as a means of communication.
       So, language does not exist outside of culture as "a socially inherited set of practical skills and ideas that characterize our way of life." As one of the types of human activity, language turns out to be an integral part of culture, defined (see above) as a set of results of human activity in various spheres of human life: industrial, social, spiritual. However, as a form of existence of thinking and, most importantly, as a means of communication, language is on a par with culture.
            If we consider the language from the point of view of its structure, functioning and ways of mastering it (both native and foreign), then the sociocultural layer, or component of culture, turns out to be part of the language or the background of its real being.
       At the same time, the cultural component is not just some kind of cultural information communicated by the language. This is an integral property of the language, inherent in all its levels and all branches.
& NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP & NBSP Language - Powerful Public Weapon Forming Human Stream in Ethnos, Forming a Nation through Storing and Transfer of Culture, Traditions, Public Self Conduction of this Speech Team.
       «Language occupies the first place among the national-specific components of culture. First of all, language contributes to the fact that culture can be both a means of communication and a means of separating people. A language is a sign that its speakers belong to a certain society.
& NBSP & NBSP in the language as the main specific sign of an ethnic kit can be viewed from two sides: in the direction "inside", and then it acts as the main factor of ethnic integration; in the direction of "outward", and in this case it is the main ethnination sign of the ethnos. Dialectically combining these two opposite functions in itself, language turns out to be an instrument both for the self-preservation of an ethnos and for the separation of “us” and “them”.
       Thus, the relationship between language and culture is a complex and multifaceted issue.

At the present stage of development of science, the need for a comprehensive study of linguistic and sociocultural processes in their functional interaction in the course of the historical development of society is becoming more and more obvious. The expediency of such an approach is due, in particular, to the impossibility of considering a number of important linguistic phenomena in isolation from the conditions for the functioning of society and the development of its culture. Accordingly, taking into account the linguistic context is of great importance for adequate coverage of issues that are in the field of view of such related scientific disciplines as cultural studies, sociology, history, etc.

The study of the question of the relationship between the phenomena of "language" and "culture" is largely hampered by the lack of a clear and consistent definition of the concept of "culture", a developed conceptual and terminological apparatus. Experts have counted at least 600 definitions of culture, but the scatter in the interpretation of the scope of the concept of "culture" in them is so great that it is very difficult for a non-culturologist to navigate in this sea of ​​definitions, which is why he often has to end up being satisfied with the ordinary idea of ​​culture. Without going into the details of these definitions, we note that culture is often identified in them either with the totality of spiritual and material values ​​created by man, etc. Accordingly, ideas about the role of language in the cultural process also vary (cf.: part / element / tool / form, etc. culture). In general, the range of assessments includes either the complete dissolution of language in culture (moreover, only a purely instrumental role is often incorrectly attributed to language), or, on the contrary, the denial of the direct relationship of both phenomena. We cannot fail to notice that the discussions on this subject are often of a scholastic nature.

Of the wide range of issues covered by the "Language and Culture" problem, only some aspects are currently the most developed, concerning, for example, the role of language in artistic creativity, as well as the "reflective" or "cognitive" function of language. In the latter case, researchers usually operate with a broad understanding of culture as a set of material and spiritual values ​​created by man. Moreover, the language is considered as a kind of "cast" of this or that cultural layer, as a historically changeable set of designations that fix the cultural progress of a society, its historical evolution. In other words, the language fixes civilizational strata, many of which are the subject of special etymological investigations.

When writing this work, we will set ourselves the task of considering from a certain perspective the problem of the interaction of language and culture in the history of an ethnos, by no means claiming to be any kind of exhaustive coverage of this complex and multifaceted topic. At the same time, issues that are essential for understanding a range of convergent and divergent processes accompanying the formation of poly- and monocultural ethnic communities.

The original was a system-functional approach to the phenomena of "language" and "culture". In our understanding of the phenomenon of culture, we were guided by the concept that culture is a system of spiritual development of reality, including the production, storage, distribution and consumption of spiritual values.

When comparing both systems, we paid special attention to their essential, i.e. substantive and functional parameters.

In our view, both phenomena - language and culture - are autonomous, but at the same time closely interacting sign systems, correlated with thinking and communication. However, a few important points should be emphasized:

ü both systems are complex in nature, since they use a certain set of sign systems;

ü sign systems characteristic of the language are isofunctional, homogeneous. They are manifested in the form of various forms of the existence of an ethnic language (literary language, everyday colloquial speech, etc.), used both in sound and graphic implementation. Because of this, we can talk about the homogeneity of the language as a system as a whole;

Sign systems used in culture are very diverse and heterogeneous, they differ significantly from each other. So, in the works of M. Kagan, such “languages” as kinetic, sound-intonation, verbal, sound signaling, iconic language are called as adjacent (which, in our opinion, is very controversial, given the disparate significance of the compared components). The heterogeneity of these "languages" allows us to talk about the heterogeneity of culture as a phenomenon;

Both phenomena, as already noted, are closely related to thinking and communication, however, the significance of this relationship, its specific gravity differ significantly from each other. So, the communicative function certainly prevails in the language, it is its dominant functional purpose. In culture, on the contrary, the aesthetic function predominates, first of all, it is an attitude towards the aesthetic self-expression of the individual, the creator. In a sense, the author may be indifferent to how his work will be perceived by the modern mass consumer, whether it will find its admirers or, on the contrary, anticipate a future turn in the development of culture and, accordingly, will not be understood by contemporaries. Thus, with a certain degree of conventionality, it can be said that in language as a phenomenon, the orientation towards the mass addressee prevails, while in culture the elitism is more valued, and not the mass character (cf. the attitude towards mass culture, replicating some stereotypes for the “required” public). In fairness, however, it should be noted that the opposition "massity-elitism" is to some extent legitimate for the language as a current one. We have in mind the special prestige, the elitism of the literary language, which initially had a narrow social base. So, for example, in the Old Czech period, according to scientists, only two or three percent of the speakers of the Czech language were literate, i.e. could to some extent own the norm of the literary idiom: it was the clergy, later feudal lords, the higher burghers, etc. joined their number. Further, the cultivation of the literary language, purposefully carried out by its codifiers, also reflects a kind of linguistic aestheticism (linguistic culture), the principles of which change depending on the existing speech canons. Thus, in the era of the Czech Renaissance, a significant difference was deliberately cultivated between the poetic language (both in prose and poetry) and the spoken language, the language of the "street". Subsequently, for a long time, at least until the first half of the 20th century, the rule of following the exemplary speech of the so-called good author was in effect. It is noteworthy that, according to Czech realism, J. Neruda persistently urged the Czech social elite to use in her easy communication not at all an everyday colloquial, but a literary language with all its attributes. The practice of modern linguistic communication convincingly shows how unsuccessful these attempts were: linguistic aesthetics is increasingly gravitating towards colloquialism, expressiveness, and by no means towards a refined literary norm. Nowadays, in almost all Slavic languages, the language of mass communication and journalism is being established as a kind of “reference speech”. A manifestation of elitism, a kind of social marking, was the deliberate use of a foreign language, say French, among the varistocratic environment of Russia, German - among the Czech nobility and wealthy petty bourgeoisie . However, over time, the use of socially marked idioms began to lose its apparent appeal. The social base of the literary language has expanded significantly;

ü both in language and in culture, a similar communication chain operates: a generator (communicator) that generates a certain text (and, as P. Zima rightly notes, not every generated text is a work of culture and not every work of culture is embodied with the help of linguistic means) - channels of communication , which determine both synchronous and diachronic translation of the text - the addressee / recipient / communicant as the final point of the communication chain. Despite the fact that the technical capabilities of modern communication channels allow the use of various semiotic systems, as well as their combinations, for fixing, storing and transmitting information linguistic sign systems are undeniable. This is due to its properties such as universality, the ability for continuous development, improvement, stability (flexible), polysemanticity (which is important for saving language signs), rich expressive means, a high degree of similarity in the reproduction of schemes, which contributes to the operational "decoding" of information, etc. .P. It is important, however, to emphasize that with communicative, carried out with the help of linguistic means, of particular importance is the correspondence of the linguistic competence of both participants in the communicative act, which implies not only knowledge of the norm of the language idiom used, but also the ability to adequately use it in accordance with the existing communicative standard. Otherwise, a communicative failure may occur, a kind of communicative shock for the addressee to whom the information is intended (most often this occurs when the norm is unreasonably violated in cases of prestigious, standard speech use: cf. errors in the speech of radio and television announcers, in public statements of statesmen, etc.). In other words, the communicator is "very much" interested in the fact that the information generated by him is quickly, without loss, with an adequate reaction perceived by the addressee. Let us recall that in culture, as already noted, the factor of such mutual competence is not so relevant.

Qualifying language and culture as autonomous systems that differ from each other both in terms of substance and functionality, one should keep in mind their close interaction, both indirect and direct. In the first case, we mean that both phenomena are correlated with thinking and, accordingly, are connected indirectly with each other through this connection. Being an integral component of thinking, i.e. logical and rational understanding of the world. Language takes part in all types of spiritual production, regardless of whether they use the word as a direct tool of creativity. By materializing public consciousness, the linguistic sign system is the carrier and, consequently, the custodian of information, i.e. certain concepts and judgments about the surrounding world. Note that the range of this information is practically unlimited: from logical-rational to sensory-emotional perception of the world. The appearance of the corresponding language name, i.e. sign, is preceded by a complex process of preparation and classification of the concept in accordance with the expressive possibilities of a particular language.

Closely interacting with each other, both phenomena have a large area of ​​intersection due to the fact that language is one of the most important ways of objectifying, exteriorizing culture, performing the most essential aesthetic function in it. However, it should be taken into account that, just as culture has a non-linguistic sphere of its implementation, language is used not only in culture, but also much more widely - in the system of public communication as a whole.

In culturological literature, as already noted, the qualification of language as an instrument of culture prevails. It is hardly necessary to specifically prove that this impoverishes the significance of language in artistic creativity, where its role is much more complex and multifaceted. First of all, language makes possible the full flow of the cultural cycle, that is, the communication chain mentioned above: spiritual production - storage and transmission (both horizontally and vertically) of spiritual values ​​- and, finally, their consumption. The importance of language is especially obvious in the verbal forms of creativity, and above all in fiction, where language means perform an important aesthetic function, are an integral part of the structure of the work, and play an important role in the embodiment of the artistic image.

Language and culture - this is what characterizes any ethnic group, at whatever stage of evolution it may be. They unite and make the members of an ethnic group related to the forces of nature and to other ethnic groups. Language and culture distinguish one ethnic group from another, and at the same time, through them, ways of communication and even rapprochement of different ethnic groups are opened.

Until now, language and culture have never been uniform entities. They lived with their peoples. They gradually changed, turning among modern peoples into hierarchies or into systems of states at different times.

Usually, attempts to solve the problem of the relationship between language and culture in linguistics are based on the particular scientific methodological ideas of linguists and on the particular scientific ideas of culturologists.

The traditional way to solve this problem is to approach purely linguistic problems using some notions of culture. The first attempt of this kind was the work of A.A. Potebnya, especially his book "Thought and Language", then the works of S. Balli and J. Vandries should be mentioned. The results of attempts to solve the problem of language and culture primarily depend on the ideas about language and culture that the researcher has. Usually linguists tried to understand this problem, for whom culturological knowledge was always peripheral to a certain extent. An attempt to simultaneously use both linguistic and cultural approaches to develop general methodological goals can be called a joint work carried out under the auspices of the University of Michigan in the 1951/52 academic years by 16 specialists led by C. Stevenson, the result of which was a collective monograph "Language, thinking, culture" edited by P. Henle.

One of the attempts to answer the question of the influence of individual fragments (or spheres) of culture on the functioning of language in society took shape in the functional style of the Prague School and modern sociolinguistics. Another particular problem solved within the framework of the problem of language and culture is the influence of the cultural environment of an individual on the formation of his language in ontogeny. Different proficiency in the literary norm of the national language determines the place on the social ladder. In this regard, the works of B. Bernstein should be mentioned.

The solution to the problem of the influence of culture on the dialect ontogenesis of a personality by comparing national cultures and national languages ​​is similar to that proposed by the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic relativity. Recently, ethnopsycholinguistics, which has arisen in psycholinguistics as its specialized part, has been trying to offer solutions to the national and cultural specifics of speech and non-verbal communication.

Psycholinguistics studies the universal internal mental mechanism for the production and perception of speech, while ethnopsycholinguistics tries to investigate the observable forms of functioning of this mechanism, which are always implemented in the national language and national culture.

The desire to consider language and culture in their unity, more precisely, in their relationship, is based on their explicitly or implicitly postulated ontological unity. To solve the problem of language and culture in a general form or in the form of particular tasks, it is necessary to establish the forms of objective unity of language and culture. It seems possible to solve the problem of the ontological unity of language and culture in the form of a number of sub-problems: integrative links between language and culture

ü in communication processes;

ü in ontogenesis (the formation of language ability in the system of higher mental functions, the transfer of human abilities in space and time);

ü in phylogeny (the formation of a social, generic person).

As a starting point for solving the ontological unity of language and culture, we can take the statement that the integration of language and culture is carried out with the help of some intermediate formation that is included both in language and culture. There is such an intermediate element that ensures the ontological unity of language and culture - this is an ideal element that enters the language in the form of the meaning of linguistic signs and exists in culture indirectly (transformed) - in the form of cultural objects, i.e. in an objectified form, and in an activity form, i.e. in the form of activity, and directly - in the form of the result of activity and in the form of adequate activity leading to this result. So, the ideal is an education integrating language and culture, it is a form of existence of the objective unity of language and culture.

Before considering the methodological schemes for solving the problem of language and culture, let us point out particular questions into which this problem is transformed in linguistics. These questions in a generalized (and inevitably crude) form can be formulated as follows: is language included in culture, and if so, how? Is culture included in the language, and if so, how?

The first question can be answered in the affirmative, since the body of the sign (signifier) ​​is a cultural object, in the form of which the linguistic and communicative ability of a person is objectified, the meaning of a sign is also a cultural formation that occurs only in human activity. Language, on the one hand, is an artifact used by ontogenesis for the formation of linguistic and communicative abilities in speech activity, which is a unity of the processes of objectification of these abilities in the form of bodies of linguistic signs and pre-objectification, when speech activity adequate to the form of bodies of signs is directed to the bodies of linguistic signs (speaking, listening, writing, reading). On the other hand, in the course of repeated repetitions of de-objectification of the bodies of linguistic signs, in the form of which linguistic and communicative abilities are objectified, the latter, passing into an activity form, are fixed in the human body (not being objectified, since the shape of the human body does not change) as the ability and skills of performing speech actions. Consequently, the language is not entirely included in the culture, in need of such a natural object as the human body. In other words, language for its existence, i.e. in order to transfer from one generation to another the skills of speaking and listening, it needs cultural objects external to the human body, in the form of which these skills and skills are frozen (objectified). Consequently, the language, existing in an objectified form in the bodies of linguistic signs and in the form of skills and skills in the human body, has two forms of manifestation: cultural - the body of a linguistic sign and natural - the human body.

The second question can also be answered in the affirmative, since the content of communication is knowledge about cultural objects; if these are not cultural, but natural objects that are not directly involved in activity, it can be easily shown that they become objects of communication only when they are known (in one form or another), i.e., correlated with the standards of perception formed in culture. In addition, the goals of communicants are a derivative of their activities. And, finally, culture is included in the language in the sense that the whole culture can be displayed (modeled) in the text.

So, the ontological unity of language and culture is provided by the ideal, which is included both in the language and in the culture. Since the ideal arises only in human activity, the ontological picture in which the ideal can be singled out and studied - the link integrating language into culture - can only be an activity ontological picture. In accordance with the activity ontology, the ideal arises only in a person performing a certain activity, and arises in the form of an image of the result of the activity, i.e. in the form that the object of activity will take in the process of influencing it.

Such an idea of ​​the ideal as a necessary element of any purposeful activity was substantiated by A.N. Leontiev and E.V. Ilyenkov. Their understanding of the ideal is connected with objective activity, in which the ideal arises as its necessary moment. The consumption and production of an object in production activity is connected with the need for its ideal representation as a result of activity. E.V. Ilyenkov wrote about this: “In the form of an active, active ability of a person as an agent of social production, an object as a product of production exists ideally, i.e. as an internal image, as a need, as an incentive and goal of human activity. The ideal is, therefore, nothing but the form of a thing, but outside this thing, namely, in man, in the form of a form of his active activity.

For a social person, an ideal image is given by society as an image of a need, a required result, a product of activity, i.e. the ideal exists for man as a moment of activity. Here you can rely on the thought of K. Marx: “And if it is clear that production delivers the object to consumption in its external form, then it is just as clear that consumption posits the object of production ideally as an internal image, as a need, as an inclination, and as an end.”

Thus, activity at the beginning of its deployment contained the ideal only in the form of an image of the result, and this image was the property of the consciousness of the subject of activity. In the process of achieving the result, the subject adapts the activity to the properties of the substance of a natural object, which is turned into a cultural object, while also focusing on the image of the result. These two restrictions - the property of the substance of a natural object and the image of the result - force the subject to use a form of activity that is adequate to these restrictions. Consequently, already in the process of activity in the mind of the subject, an idea of ​​adequate activity is formed, i.e. her ideal image is formed. Obviously, in this way, in the process of activity, a new image of consciousness was formed in the subject. If before the beginning of the activity in the consciousness of the subject there was already one ideal image (by the way, also formed in the activity, but in another, previously completed one) about the subject of culture, then in the activity itself another new image of consciousness is formed in the activity form of the existence of the object of culture.

E.V. Ilyenkov showed that the ideal, as an image of the desired result, exists in a socially defined form of activity aimed at achieving this result: “The ideal directly exists only as a form (method, image) of the activity of a social person (i.e., a completely objective, material being) aimed at the outside world ". In addition, the ideal also exists as an activity-based ability based on words, language, to recreate a necessary object, as well as an internal image fixed in the human body (in the bodily-material structures of the brain) and in the body of language.

It is important to emphasize that the world of ideal objects, i.e. The world of meanings formed in activity not only does not exist outside the social person, but it also does not exist outside the system of other forms of manifestation of activity. That is why the world of ideal objects, existing when relying on the bodies of linguistic signs (ie, as the world of linguistic meanings), is intelligible when perceiving speech only as the real world, transformed into human activity.

Activity directed at a natural object turns it into a product (a cultural object) and begins to exist in it in a removed, objectified form, i.e. activity exists as a process, as a product, and ideally as an idea of ​​the form of activity of a social person, solidified in a product, as an image of the result.

The product of labor is the essence of the subject of culture. Developing this position, V.M. Mezhuev substantiates the connection between activity and culture: “According to the Marxist understanding of activity as sensory-practical activity, any historical form of this reality should be considered not as a natural body independent of a person, but as an objective embodiment of his subjectivity, that is, activity emanating from him as a subject of activity. It is in this quality (as an object, means and result of human activity) that reality is revealed in historical knowledge as a special sphere - the sphere of culture.

For us, from the analysis of the connection between activity and objective culture, the most important conclusion is that both activity and objects of culture contain the ideal in a direct or sublated form.

The form of a cultural object that existed before the start of activity ideally in the form of an image of the result can also exist ideally in the form of the meaning of a word, based on another sensually perceived object (for example, a word). In the analysis of the connection between activity, culture and language, it is essential that the ideal, having arisen in the activity of culture and language, is essential, that the ideal, having arisen in activity (and for the formation of the ability to perform it, each generation of people needs cultural objects), begins to be used in communication, associating with other objects that are used not in their objective, but in a symbolic, sign function. Thus, the ideal being in activity is "transferred" to the language to ensure communication: the commonality of the meaning of the communicants allows them to point, using the body of the sign, spoken or written, to this meaning, which is in the minds of each communicator.

The commonality of activity and culture, created by the ideal, is also substantiated in the concept of culture as a means of human self-development and of activity as a unity of objectification/deobjectification. The subject of culture, i.e. a natural object that has become a product of activity, along with “with its useful properties, at the same time retains for itself, objectively reproduces the very human ability that created it.” An object of culture can be consumed, i.e. simply used due to its useful properties, or it can be dis-objected, as a result of which a person develops the ability to create similar objects, which was objectified in a specific form in order to transfer it in an extra-genetic way in space and time.

The processes of production and consumption of cultural objects are described by a categorical pair of concepts of objectification/deobjectification.

Human ability, which in the process of activity passes into its active state, i.e. into the form of a certain activity, then freezes in a removed, indirect, transformed form in the form of an object - a product of activity. In such an objectified form, the ability of a person as a social person is transmitted in space and time and can be formed in another person in the course of the activity of deobjectification. Disobjectification of the human ability frozen in the form of an object occurs when the so-called activity adequate to the form of the object is directed to the object, in which only human ability can be formed.

These processes of objectification and disobjectification of human abilities also include language, since they always take place in communication based on the connection of the ideal with the bodies of linguistic and non-linguistic signs.

Speech texts as sign carriers of the ideal always accompany its existence in objective activity. The introduction of activity, object and sign forms of the existence of the ideal complicates the ideas of linguists about the functions of speech texts, and allows creating methodological foundations for solving the problem of language and culture.

Speech texts, explained in terms of objectification / deobjectification, are the most complex formations. On the one hand, they are the essence of the object, in the form of which certain abilities of a person are now objectified, and on the other hand, they are sign formations in which are fixed, but not objectified, not imprinted in the very form of signs, ideal formations, to which linguistic signs only indicate indirectly, indirectly, transformed. Linguistic knowledge is required to de-objectify a speech text, and encyclopedic knowledge is also required to de-objectify the objects indicated in the text. The difference between the two types of knowledge necessary for understanding the text has long been recognized in different forms in linguistics. This dual contradictory characteristic of speech texts, however, is characteristic of all signs.

What human abilities are objectified in speech texts? The texts objectify speech skills and abilities (speaking, listening, writing, reading). Mastering certain types of speech activity, a person translates human abilities, objectified in speech texts, into an active form, and appropriates these abilities in the form of speech skills and abilities. It is quite obvious that the de-objectification of speech texts in order to appropriate human abilities occurs at the stage of formation of skills and abilities, when texts serve as educational material, and then speech texts, or rather, their forms serve rather as an object of consumption (rather than de-objectification), in the process of which formed speech skills are only supported. other skills.

As a preliminary conclusion, the following statements are justified.

The bodies of linguistic signs (signifiers) in oral and written form are cultural objects, in the form of which the human ability to produce and perceive linguistic signs is objectified.

The ideal, as a by-product of activity, is not genetically related to language, but determines the ontological unity of language and culture, being “transferred” from activity to communication, for which it creates a prerequisite (in the form of a common consciousness of communicants) for mutual understanding in the course of manipulating the bodies of signs in the intersubjective space as a means of indicating images of consciousness common to both communicants. Speech utterances (texts) are cultural objects in their substantial form (both sound and written). The texts objectify the ability to build a speech chain and the ability to organize speech communication (attract the attention of the interlocutor; orient in him, in his qualities; orient the interlocutor in himself, in his qualities, goals and motives of communication; interest in the message; orient him in the joint post-communicative activity for which communication was carried out and motivate her). The function of texts in communication (and culture as a whole) is to set the listener (reader) a certain set of rules for semantic perception, more precisely, to give a cultural object for deobjectification. mental formation, usually called the content of the text, which has nothing to do with the language, but is an ideal form of the existence of cultural objects described in the text.

Before that, we were talking about texts that displayed ideal formations that arise in the processes of objectification / deobjectification, i.e. in activity. But in addition to activity, there is activity, when people do not act on objects - this is communication. Here, the ability to communicate is transferred from one person to another, which are fixed in the human body in the form of communication skills and abilities. Unlike objects, in the form of which the active ability freezes, in a person the ability to communicate is not fixed in changes in the shape of his body in an unambiguous form, although such an influence cannot be completely denied. Therefore, a person cannot serve for another person as an object for deobjectification; the transfer of the ability to communicate most often occurs by demonstrating the active ability, i.e. patterns of communication, in the form of a description of these patterns in signs, although a method of transferring the ability borrowed from objective activity is often used: by creating an “artificial body” of a person, by creating a suit, form and individual the elements of which play the same role as the form of the object in the activity; this form signals the need to use adequate communication and an adequate way of producing speech utterances.

In society, there is an institution that specializes in the transfer of the ability to communicate in space and time - this is the institution of the holiday (and first of all the institute of the theater), the main function of which is to form communication skills and the way these skills are formed is to demonstrate communication patterns, to demonstrate effective ability.

In space and time, human abilities for objective activity are transmitted as objectified in the form of an object of activity and described with the help of signs; the accuracy of perception of the description of these human abilities is tightly controlled by the shape of the object.

Human communication abilities, not objectified in the form of a person’s body, but fixed in his body in the form of communication skills and abilities, are transmitted from person to person by demonstrating communication patterns, by showing an existing ability and in the form of description using signs; the accuracy of perception of the description of human abilities for communication is not strictly controlled by the demonstration of communication patterns, which is fundamentally variable, since the accuracy of the demonstration depends on the specific performer.

In other words, there are speech texts that describe human activity, and speech texts that describe communication; the accuracy of perception of texts of the first type is strictly controlled, high accuracy of perception of texts of the second type cannot be ensured. These two types of texts form the two extreme points of a continuum between which all conceivable texts in society can be placed; the criterion for placing texts between these extreme points is the degree of accuracy of perception practiced in society. At one end there are texts describing the technological processes of production activity, and at the other end there are texts of theater plays, poetic texts.

Thus, at present, one of the most adequate ways of forming methodological schemes for analyzing the problem of language and culture are attempts to establish a connection between language and culture on the basis of their ontological commonality, the objective form of existence of which is the ideal.