Cultures are mainly transmitted through spoken

and written languages. Encapsulated within a language

is most of a community"s history and a large part

of its cultural identity.

Culture is mainly transmitted through written and spoken language. Within the language lies the backbone of a society's history and much of its cultural identity. David Crystal.

Formulation of the problem. A picture of the world created by language and culture

Let us dwell in more detail on the relationship and interaction of language and reality, language and culture. These problems play a crucial role both for improving the forms and effectiveness of communication, and for teaching foreign languages; ignoring them explains many failures in international contacts and in pedagogical practice.

The most common metaphors when discussing this topic are: language is a MIRROR of the surrounding world, it REFLECTS reality and creates its own picture of the world, specific and unique for each language and, accordingly, the people, ethnic group, speech community using this language as a means of communication.

Metaphors are colorful and useful, especially, oddly enough, in a scientific text. We will not touch on the magic of a literary text, where, as it were, a paradise for metaphors, their natural habitat, but where the acceptability and effect of a metaphor depend on the subtlest moments that are not amenable to science: the linguistic taste and talent of the artist of the word. Let us leave God's to God, Caesar's to Caesar's, and the artist's to the artist. In a scientific text, everything is simpler and more definite: metaphors are useful in it when they facilitate UNDERSTANDING, PERCEPTION of a complex scientific phenomenon, fact, situation (however, taste and sense of proportion are just as necessary for the author of a scientific text as for an author of fiction).

The comparison of language with a mirror is justified: it really reflects the world around. Behind every word is an object or phenomenon of the real world. Language reflects everything: geography, climate, history, living conditions.

Let us recall the famous example, which has become a textbook example of linguistic folklore, with numerous (according to various sources from 14 to 20) synonyms for the word white to denote different shades and types of snow in the Eskimo language. Or the presence of several designations for the word camel in Arabic (separate names for a tired camel, a pregnant camel, etc.).

In Russian, for obvious reasons, there is a blizzard, and a blizzard, and a snowstorm, and a snowstorm, and a blizzard, and a blowing snow, and all this is associated with snow and winter, and in English this variety is expressed by the word snowstorm, which is quite enough to describe all the problems with snow in the English speaking world.

An interesting example of this kind is the numerous names of a certain type of nuts in the Hindi language. This is easily explained, "if you realize what role in the general culture and subcultures of the Hindustan Peninsula is played by the fruits of the areca palm (areca catechu), hard nuts "supari".

India annually consumes more than 200 thousand tons of such nuts: areca palms grow in a hot, humid climate, primarily along the Arabian Sea, in Konkan. The fruits are harvested unripe, mature and overripe; they are dried in the sun, in the shade or in the wind; boiled in milk, water or fried in oil squeezed from other nuts - a change in technology entails an immediate change in taste, and each new option has its own name and has its own purpose. Among the Hindu ... rituals - regular, calendar and extraordinary - there is no one where one could do without the fruits of the areca palm "1.

The relationship between the real world and language can be represented as follows:

Real world

object, event

However, between the world and language stands a thinking person, a native speaker.

The presence of the closest connection and interdependence between the language and its speakers is obvious and beyond doubt. Language is a means of communication between people, and it is inextricably linked with the life and development of the speech community that uses it as a means of communication.

The social nature of a language is manifested both in the external conditions of its functioning in a given society (bi- or multilingualism, the conditions for teaching languages, the degree of development of society, science and literature, etc.), and in the very structure of the language, in its syntax, grammar, vocabulary, in functional style, etc. Below, much attention will be paid to these issues: on the material of Russian and English, both the influence of a person on the language and the formative role of language in the formation of personality and character, both individual and national, will be shown.

So, between language and the real world there is a person. It is a person who perceives and realizes the world through the sense organs and, on this basis, creates a system of ideas about the world. Having passed them through his consciousness, having comprehended the results of this perception, he transmits them to other members of his speech group with the help of language. In other words, thinking stands between reality and language.

Language as a way to express a thought and transfer it from person to person is closely connected with thinking. The relationship between language and thinking is the eternal most difficult question of both linguistics and philosophy, however, in this work there is no need to go into discussions about the primacy, secondary nature of these phenomena, the possibility of doing without verbal expression of thought, etc. For the purposes of this book, the main thing is an undoubted close the relationship and interdependence of language and thinking and their relationship with culture and reality.

The word reflects not the object of reality itself, but its vision, which is imposed on the native speaker by the idea in his mind, the concept of this object. The concept is compiled at the level of generalization of some basic features that form this concept, and therefore is an abstraction, a distraction from specific features. The path from the real world to the concept and further to verbal expression is different for different peoples, which is due to differences in history, geography, the characteristics of the life of these peoples and, accordingly, differences in the development of their social consciousness. Since our consciousness is conditioned both collectively (by way of life, customs, traditions, etc., that is, by everything that was defined above by the word culture in its broad, ethnographic sense), and individually (by the specific perception of the world inherent in this particular individual) , then language reflects reality not directly, but through two zigzags: from the real world to thinking and from thinking to language. The metaphor with a mirror is no longer as accurate as it seemed at first, because the MIRROR turns out to be CURVE: its distortion is due to the culture of the speaking group, its mentality, vision of the world, or worldview.

Thus, language, thought and culture are so closely interrelated that they practically constitute a single whole, consisting of these three components, none of which can function (and therefore exist) without the other two. All together they relate to the real world, oppose it, depend on it, reflect and at the same time shape it.

The diagram above is refined as follows:

Real world

Thinking/Culture

Language/Speech

object, event

Representation, concept

So, the world around a person is presented in three forms:

Real picture of the world

Cultural (or conceptual) picture of the world,

Linguistic picture of the world.

The real picture of the world is an objective non-human given, it is the world that surrounds a person.

The cultural (conceptual) picture of the world is a reflection of the real picture through the prism of concepts formed on the basis of a person's ideas, received with the help of the senses and passed through his consciousness, both collective and individual.

The cultural picture of the world is specific and differs among different peoples. This is due to a number of factors: geography, climate, natural conditions, history, social structure, beliefs, traditions, lifestyle, etc. Let's illustrate this with examples.

At the SIETAR international congress in Finland in 1994, colleagues from the Norwegian Center for Intercultural Communication presented a cultural map of Europe developed by their center. The map does not reflect the real geographical and political features of European countries, but the perception of these countries, based on the stereotypes of cultural ideas inherent in Norwegians. In other words, this is a cultural picture of Europe through the eyes of the inhabitants of Norway.

Here's what that card looked like:

Vigdis [Vigdis (President of Iceland)]; IRA [IRA (Irish Republican Army)]; nesten IRA [almost IRA]; Charles & Di [Charles and Diana];

Europas navle [navel of Europe]; Volvo ["Volvo"]; sauna & vodka [sauna and vodka]; Russere [Russians]; billig [cheap]; billigere [even cheaper]; godt kjokken

[good kitchen]; flatt [flat, even]; Tivoli & Legoland [Tivoli and Legoland]; fri hastighet [no speed limits]; svarte bankkonti [shadow bank accounts]; mafia [mafia]; nyttarskonsert [New Year's concert]; nesten Russere [almost Russian]; badestrand [beach]

For comparison, here are similar cultural maps of Europe compiled by students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages ​​of Moscow State University. These pictures of the European world reflect the stereotypes of cultural ideas that the inhabitants of modern Russia have.

Enjoy your meals! [Bon appetit!]

Unknown "cuisine" [unknown cuisine],

I "ve never been in the UK [I have never been to England];

salmon [salmon];

olives [olives];

red wine [red wine];

pork [pork];

beer & sausages [beer and sausages];

cheese [cheese];

pizza [pizza];

spaghetti [spaghetti];

potato [potato];

beet & carrot [beets and carrots];

grape [grapes]; seafood [seafood];

oranges [oranges]

Herrings [herring]; W. B. Yeats [W. B. Yeats]; 5 o "clock [fayvoklok]; vikings [Vikings]; mermaid [mermaid]; Peter the Great [Peter the Great]; Santa Claus [Santa Claus]; Russian language [Russian]; cigars [cigars]; Salvador Dali [Salvador Dali ]; revoluton [revolution]; chocolate [chocolate]; drugs [drugs]; sausages [sausages]; Swatch ["Swatch"]; carnival [carnival]; pan [pan]; beer [beer]; the Alps [Alps]; Balaton [Balaton]; Dracula [Dracula]; war [war]; red pepper [red pepper]; sirtaki [sirtaki]

The generalized results of the experiment make up a colorful picture of cultural associations associated with Europe in the minds of today's Russian youth.

The linguistic picture of the world reflects reality through the cultural picture of the world. "The idea of ​​the existence of national-specific language pictures of the world originated in German philology of the late 18th - early 19th centuries (Michaelis, Herder, Humboldt). Firstly, it is about the fact that language, as an ideal, objectively existing structure, subjugates, organizes perception of the world by its speakers. And secondly, that language - a system of pure meanings - forms its own world, as if pasted on the real world "2.

The question of the relationship between cultural (conceptual, conceptual) and linguistic pictures of the world is extremely complex and multifaceted. Its essence boils down to differences in the refraction of reality in language and culture.

The book "The Human Factor in Language" argues that the conceptual and linguistic pictures of the world correlate with each other as a whole with a part. The linguistic picture of the world is a part of the cultural (conceptual) picture, although the most significant one. However, the linguistic picture is poorer than the cultural one, since, along with the linguistic one, other types of mental activity are involved in the creation of the latter, and also due to the fact that the sign is always inaccurate and is based on any one sign 3.

Apparently, all the same, it is more correct to speak not about the relationship part - whole, language - part of culture, but about interpenetration, interconnection and interaction. Language is part of culture, but culture is only part of language. This means that the linguistic picture of the world is not completely absorbed by the cultural one, if by the latter we mean the image of the world refracted in the mind of a person, that is, the worldview of a person, created as a result of his physical experience and spiritual activity.

The definition of the picture of the world given in the book "The Human Factor in Language" does not take into account the physical activity of a person and his physical experience of perceiving the world around him: "The most adequate understanding of the picture of the world is its definition as the initial global image of the world underlying the human worldview, representing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of its bearers and being the result of all spiritual activity of a person" 4. However, the spiritual and physical activities of a person are inseparable from each other, and the exclusion of any of these two components is illegal when it comes to the cultural-conceptual picture of the world.

So, the cultural and linguistic pictures of the world are closely interconnected, are in a state of continuous interaction and go back to the real picture of the world, or rather, simply to the real world surrounding a person.

All attempts of various linguistic schools to tear language away from reality have failed for a simple and obvious reason: it is necessary to take into account not only the linguistic FORM, but also the CONTENT - this is the only possible way to comprehensively study any phenomenon. The content, semantics, meaning of language units, primarily words, is the correlation of a certain sound (or graphic) complex with an object or phenomenon of the real world. Linguistic semantics opens the way from the world of language proper to the world of reality. This thread connecting the two worlds is entangled in cultural ideas about the objects and phenomena of the cultural world that are characteristic of a given speech community in general and an individual native speaker in particular.

The path from extralinguistic reality to the concept and further to verbal expression is not the same for different peoples, which is due to differences in the history and living conditions of these peoples, the specifics of the development of their social consciousness. Accordingly, the linguistic picture of the world is different for different peoples. This is manifested in the principles of categorization of reality, materializing both in vocabulary and grammar.

Of course, the national cultural picture of the world is primary in relation to the linguistic one. It is fuller, richer and deeper than the corresponding language. However, it is the language that realizes, VERBALIZES the national cultural picture of the world, stores it and passes it on from generation to generation. Language captures far from everything that is in the national vision of the world, but it is able to DESCRIPTION everything.

The most obvious illustration is the word, the basic unit of language and the most important unit of language learning. A word is not just the name of an object or phenomenon, a certain "piece" of the world surrounding a person. This piece of reality was passed through the consciousness of a person and, in the process of reflection, acquired specific features inherent in this national public consciousness, conditioned by the culture of this people.

The word can be compared to a piece of a puzzle. In different languages, these pieces add up to different pictures. These paintings will differ, for example, in their colors: where the Russian language makes its speakers see two colors: blue and light blue, the Englishman sees one: blue. At the same time, both Russian-speaking and English-speaking people look at the same object of reality - a piece of the spectrum.

Of course, any person is able, if necessary, to restore what is in reality, including the Englishman, who undoubtedly sees all the shades of color available to the human eye (and, if necessary, can designate either in terms or descriptively: dark blue [dark blue], navy blue [dark blue], sky-blue [blue, azure], pale-blue [light blue]). Even Chernyshevsky used to say: if the English have only one word cook, this does not mean that they do not distinguish a cook from a cook.

Language imposes a certain vision of the world on a person. When assimilating the native language, an English-speaking child sees two objects: foot and leg, where a Russian-speaking child sees only one - a foot, but at the same time, an English speaker does not distinguish colors (blue and blue), unlike a Russian speaker, and sees only blue.

Having learned a foreign word, a person, as it were, extracts a piece of a mosaic from a picture that is alien, still unknown to him until the end, and tries to combine it with the picture of the world in his mind, given to him by his native language. It is this circumstance that is one of the stumbling blocks in teaching foreign languages ​​and constitutes for many students the main (sometimes insurmountable) difficulty in the process of mastering a foreign language. If the naming of an object or phenomenon of the world around us were a simple, "mirror-dead", mechanical, photographic act, as a result of which not a PICTURE would be formed, but a PHOTOGRAPHY of the world, the same for different peoples, independent of their consciousness determined by being, this In a fantastic (not human, but machine-robot) case, the study of foreign languages ​​(and translation from language to language) would turn into a simple, mechanical-mnemonic process of switching from one code to another.

However, in reality, the path from reality to the word (through the concept) is complex, multifaceted and zigzag. By assimilating a foreign, new language, a person simultaneously assimilates an alien, new world. With a new foreign word, the student, as it were, transposes into his consciousness, into his world a concept from another world, from another culture. Thus, the study of a foreign language (especially at the initial, rather long stage, beyond which, unfortunately, many language learners do not advance) is accompanied by a kind of split personality.

It is this need to restructure thinking, to reshape one's own, familiar, native picture of the world according to a strange, unusual pattern, and is one of the main difficulties (including psychological) in mastering a foreign language, and the difficulty is implicit, not lying on the surface, often not realized at all. students (and sometimes the teacher), which, apparently, explains the lack of attention to this problem.

Let us dwell in more detail on the actual linguistic aspect of this problem.

So, one and the same concept, one and the same piece of reality has different forms of linguistic expression in different languages ​​- more complete or less complete. The words of different languages, denoting the same concept, may differ in semantic capacity, may cover different pieces of reality. Pieces of a mosaic representing a picture of the world can vary in size in different languages, depending on the amount of conceptual material resulting from the reflection of the world around him in the human brain. The ways and forms of reflection, as well as the formation of concepts, are determined, in turn, by the specifics of the sociocultural and natural features of the life of a given speech group. Differences in linguistic thinking are manifested in the feeling of redundancy or insufficiency of the forms of expression of the same concept, in comparison with the native language of the student of a foreign language.

The concept of linguistic and cultural pictures of the world plays an important role in the study of foreign languages. Indeed, the interference of native culture complicates communication no less than the native language. The learner of a foreign language penetrates into the culture of the native speakers of this language and is exposed to the influence of the culture inherent in it. The secondary picture of the world of the studied language is superimposed on the primary picture of the world of the native language and native culture.

The secondary picture of the world that arises in the study of a foreign language and culture is not so much a picture REFLECTED by the language as a picture CREATED by the language.

The interaction of primary and secondary pictures of the world is a complex psychological process that requires a certain rejection of one's own "I" and adaptation to another (from "other countries") vision of the world. Under the influence of the secondary picture of the world, the personality is reshaped. The diversity of languages ​​reflects the diversity of the world, a new picture highlights new facets and obscures old ones. Watching for more than 30 years foreign language teachers who are constantly exposed to them, I can say that Russian teachers of the departments of English, French, German and other languages ​​acquire certain features of the national culture of the languages ​​they teach.

It becomes obvious that the need for the closest study of interlingual correspondences and the relevance of this problem for optimizing intercultural communication, as well as for improving the methods of teaching foreign languages, for the theory and practice of translation and lexicography.

The extreme case of linguistic insufficiency will apparently be the general absence of an equivalent for the expression of one or another concept, often caused by the absence of the concept itself. This includes the so-called non-equivalent vocabulary, that is, words whose content plan cannot be compared with any foreign lexical concepts. The concepts or objects of thought (things meant) they designate are unique and inherent only in this world and, accordingly, in the language.

If necessary, the language borrows words to express concepts that are characteristic of someone else's linguistic thinking from someone else's language environment. If in the Russian-speaking world there are no such drinks as whiskey and ale, and in the English-speaking world there are no such dishes as pancakes and borscht, then these concepts are expressed using words borrowed from the corresponding language. These can be words denoting objects of national culture (balalaika, matryoshka, blini, vodka; football, whiskey, ale), political, economic or scientific terms (Bolshevik, perestroyka, sputnik; impeachment, leasing, dealer; file, computer, bit) .

Non-equivalent vocabulary, undoubtedly, most vividly and clearly illustrates the idea of ​​reflecting reality in the language, however, its share in the lexical composition of the language is small: in Russian it is 6-7%, according to E. M. Vereshchagin and V. G. Kostomarov 5. Non-equivalent Vocabulary is well studied by the theory and practice of translation and represents an extreme case of language insufficiency.

More complicated is the situation when the same concept is verbally expressed in different ways - redundantly or insufficiently - in different languages.

Consider, for example, ways of expressing that fact of extralinguistic reality, which in Russian is called a finger. To name this object in English, it is necessary to clarify what is meant: a finger or a toe, and if hands, then which finger, because, as you know, the fingers of the hand, except for the thumb, are called fingers by the English thumb - thumb and toes - toes ten toes (on the feet)]. The form of expression of the same piece of the real world will cause a feeling of redundancy in an English learner (why divide fingers into fingers, thumbs, toes?), and in an English learner of Russian - insufficiency (three different thinking concepts are combined into one - a finger).

The facts of redundancy or insufficiency of one or another language arsenal are especially sensitive for translators and have always been in the focus of attention of theorists and practitioners of translation, but they are completely unfairly ignored or insufficiently taken into account by teachers and methodologists.

Although non-equivalence and incomplete equivalence are quite common in different languages, it is assumed that most words in different languages ​​are equivalent, they are based on an interlingual concept, that is, they contain the same amount of conceptual material, reflect the same piece of reality. It is believed that this layer of vocabulary is the easiest to learn and translate. So it would be if the study of a foreign language could be reduced to the assimilation of a system of concepts. But the language does not consist of concepts, but of words, and the semantics of the word is not limited to the lexical concept alone. The semantics of a word is largely determined by its lexical and phraseological compatibility and various kinds of sociolinguistic connotations, and cases of equivalence of words in the entire volume of their semantics and real functioning in speech are apparently extremely rare.

The presence of interlingual synonyms is highly questionable. Therefore, the problem of interlingual correspondences deserves a subtle and comprehensive analysis. It is extremely difficult to find multilingual words that express "the same concept and do not differ from each other in emotionally expressive, stylistic or any other type of constant significant information" 6. A clear difference in linguistic, proper linguistic information, different lexical and phraseological compatibility , completely different sociolinguistic connotations due to culture, customs, traditions of different speaking communities (not to mention the dependence on place, time, goals and other circumstances of communication) cannot but affect the semantics and use of the word. This makes the question of the presence of interlingual synonyms (and even more so interlingual equivalents) very problematic 7. Artificial isolation of a conceptual meaning and the establishment of an interlingual correspondence on this basis can distort the picture and, in the end, does a disservice to both the learner of a foreign language and the translator.

Language is a system of signs that naturally arose in human society and is developing, clothed in sound (oral speech) or graphic (written speech) form. Language is able to express the totality of concepts and thoughts of a person and is intended for the purposes of communication. The outstanding Russian linguist A.A. Potebnya said: "Language is always as much an end as a means, it is created as much as it is used." Language proficiency is an integral feature of a person, and the emergence of a language coincides with the time of the formation of a person.

The naturalness of occurrence and the limitless possibilities for expressing the most abstract and most complex concepts distinguish language from the so-called artificial languages , that is, languages ​​designed specifically for special purposes, for example, programming languages, languages ​​of logic, mathematics, chemistry, consisting of special characters; traffic signs, marine signaling, Morse code.

The term "language" itself is ambiguous, as it can mean 1) any means of communication (for example, programming languages, body language, animal language); 2) natural human language as a specific property of a person; 3) national language ( Russian, German, Chinese); 4) the language of any group of people, one or more people ( children's language, the language of the writer). Until now, scientists find it difficult to say how many languages ​​there are in the world; their number ranges from 2.5 to 5 thousand people.

There are two forms of the existence of a language, corresponding to the concepts language and speech , the first should be understood as a code, a system of signs that exists in the minds of people, speech as a direct implementation of language in oral and written texts. Speech is understood as the process of speaking, and its result - speech activity fixed by memory or writing. Speech and language form a single phenomenon of human language in general and of each specific national language, taken in its certain state. Speech is implementation, implementation a language that reveals itself in speech and only through it embodies its communicative purpose. If language is a communication tool, then speech is the type of communication produced by this tool. Speech is always concrete and unique, in contrast to the abstract and reproducible signs of language; it is relevant, correlated with some life event, language is potential; speech unfolds in time and space, it is determined by the goals and objectives of speaking, the participants in communication, while language is abstracted from these parameters. Speech is infinite both in time and space, while the system of language is finite, relatively closed; speech is material, it consists of sounds or letters perceived by the senses, language includes abstract signs - analogues of units of speech; speech is active and dynamic, the language system is passive and static; speech is linear, while language has a level organization. All changes that occur in the course of time in the language are due to speech, are initially made in it, and then are fixed in the language.

Being the most important means of communication, language unites people, regulates their interpersonal and social interaction, coordinates their practical activities, participates in the formation of concepts, forms the consciousness and self-awareness of a person, that is, it plays a vital role in the main areas of human activity - communicative, social, practical, informational, spiritual and aesthetic. The functions of a language are unequal: fundamental are those whose fulfillment predetermined its emergence and constitutive properties. The main one is considered communicative function language, which determines its main characteristic - the presence of a material shell (sound) and a system of rules for encoding and decoding information. It is thanks to the ability of language to perform a communicative function - to serve as an instrument of communication, that human society develops, transmits information in time and space that is vital, serves social progress and establishes contact between different societies.

To serve as a tool for the expression of thought is the second fundamental function of language, which is called cognitive or logical (as well as epistemological or cognitive). The structure of the language is inextricably linked with the rules of thinking, and the main significant units of the language - morpheme, word, phrase, sentence - are analogues of logical categories - concepts, judgments, logical connections. The communicative and cognitive functions of the language are inextricably linked, as they have a common basis. The language is adapted both for the expression of thought and for communication, but these two most important functions are realized in speech. These, in turn, are closely related to more specific functions, the number of which varies. So, the famous psychologist and linguist K. Buhler identified three important functions of the language: representative - the ability to designate extralinguistic reality, expressive - the ability to express the inner state of the speaker, appellative - the ability to influence the addressee of speech. These three functions are inextricably linked with the communicative one, since they are determined based on the structure of the communication process, the structure of the speech act, the necessary components of which are the speaker, the listener, and what is being reported. However, the expressive and representative functions are also closely related to the cognitive one, since, by reporting something, the speaker comprehends and evaluates what is being reported. Another famous scientist - R.O. Jacobson - singled out six unequal functions of the language: referential or nominative , which serves to designate the surrounding world, extralinguistic categories; emotive expressing the attitude of the author of the speech to its content; conative , which determines the orientation of the speaker or writer to the listener or reader. The scientist considered these functions to be the main ones. Closely related to the conative function magic function , designed to influence the psyche of the listener, causing him a state of meditation, ecstasy, serving the purposes of suggestion. The magical function of the language is realized with the help of certain techniques: spells, curses, conspiracies, divination, advertising texts, oaths, oaths, slogans and appeals, and others.

In the free communication of people is realized phatic, or contact-setting function. The phatic function of language is served by various formulas of etiquette, appeals, the purpose of which is to start, continue and stop communication. Language serves not only as an instrument of communication between people, but also as a means of knowing the language itself; in this case, it is implemented metalinguistic function, since a person receives knowledge about the language with the help of the language itself. Setting that the message in its form, in unity with the content, satisfies the aesthetic sense of the addressee, creates the poetic function of the language, which, being the main one for the artistic text, is also present in everyday speech, manifesting itself in its rhythm, figurativeness, metaphor, expressiveness. By assimilating any language, a person simultaneously assimilates the national culture and traditions of the people who are the native speakers of this language, since the language also acts as the guardian of the national identity of the people, its culture and history, which is due to such a special function of the language as cumulative . The peculiar spiritual world of the people, its cultural and historical values ​​are fixed both in the elements of the language - words, phraseology, grammar, syntax, and in speech - a multitude of texts created in this language.

Thus, all the functions of the language can be divided into the main ones - communicative and cognitive (cognitive) and secondary ones, which are distinguished insofar as they create the main types of speech acts or specific types of speech activity. The basic functions of the language intercondition each other when using the language, but in individual acts of speech or texts they are revealed to varying degrees. Private functions are related to the main ones, so the contact-setting function, conative and magic functions, as well as the cumulative function are most closely related to the communicative function. The most closely related to the cognitive function are nominative (naming objects of reality), referential (representation and reflection in the language of the surrounding world), emotive (assessment of facts, phenomena and events), poetic (artistic development and understanding of reality).

Being the main instrument of communication between people, language is manifested in speech activity, which is one of the types of human social activity. Like any social activity, verbal communication is conscious and purposeful. It consists of separate acts of speech, or speech (communicative) acts, which are its dynamic units. The following elements must be involved in a speech act: the speaker and the addressee, who have a certain fund of general knowledge and ideas, the setting and purpose of speech communication, as well as the fragment of objective reality about which the message is being made. These components form the pragmatic side of speech activity, under the influence of which the coordination (adaptation) of the utterance to the moment of speech is carried out. To perform a speech act means to pronounce articulate sounds that belong to a commonly understood language; construct a statement from the words of a given language and according to the rules of its grammar; provide the statement with meaning and correlate it with the objective world; give purposefulness to your speech; influence the addressee and thereby create a new situation, that is, achieve the desired effect with your statement.

The informative orientation of communicative acts is very diverse and can be complicated by additional communicative tasks. With the help of speech acts, one can not only convey some information, but also complain, brag, threaten, flatter, and others. Some communicative goals can be achieved not only with the help of speech, but also non-verbal means , for example, facial expressions, gestures - an invitation to enter, sit down, a threat, a request to be silent. Other communication goals, on the other hand, can only be achieved with verbal means - an oath, a promise, a congratulation, since speech in this case is equivalent to the action itself. According to the purpose of the statement, various types of communicative acts are distinguished: informative, reporting; encouraging; etiquette formulas; expressing emotional reactions to the message.

Speech activity is an object of study for linguists (psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, phonetics, stylistics), psychologists, physiologists, specialists in higher nervous activity, communication theory, acoustics, philosophers, sociologists, literary critics. In linguistics, as it were, there are two main areas of research: in one, language systems are studied, in the other, speech. Speech linguistics studies typified phenomena that are associated with communication participants and other communication conditions; it breaks down into two interacting regions: text linguistics and the theory of speech activity and speech acts. Text linguistics studies the structure of speech works, their division, ways of creating text cohesion, the frequency of occurrence of certain units of language in certain types of text, the semantic and structural completeness of the text, speech norms in different functional styles, the main types of speech - monologue, dialogue, polylogue), features of written and oral communication. The theory of speech activity studies the processes of speech formation and perception of speech, the mechanisms of speech errors, goal-setting of communication, the relationship of speech acts with the conditions for their flow, factors that ensure the effectiveness of a speech act, the relationship of speech activity to other types of human social activity. If the theory of text is inextricably linked with literary criticism and stylistics, then the theory of speech activity is developed in cooperation with psychology, psychophysiology and sociology.

However, not all languages ​​are able to perform a communicative function and participate in speech activity. So, languages ​​​​that have become obsolete and known on the basis of written monuments or records that have come down to our time are called dead. The process of extinction of languages ​​takes place especially in those countries where native speakers are pushed into isolated areas and, in order to be included in the general life of the country, they must switch to its main language (English in America and Australia; Russian in Russia). The use of a non-native language in boarding schools, colleges and other secondary and higher educational institutions plays a special role in accelerating this process. Many languages ​​of the Far North, North America, Australia have become or are becoming dead; they can be judged mainly on the basis of descriptions compiled before their extinction.

With the extinction of a language in the last stages of its existence, it becomes characteristic only for certain age and social groups: the older age group retains the language for the longest time, with the physical death of which it dies. A dying language can also be used by preschool children, but when taught in a non-native language, they can almost completely lose their native language, switching to a common language for a given region or country. This process, which is facilitated by the spread of the main language by the mass media, leads to the rapid extinction of minor languages ​​in the second half of the 20th century. In earlier eras, the main factors in the extinction of languages ​​could be the mass destruction of conquered peoples during the creation of large empires, such as ancient Persian or the planting of the main language of the empire, Byzantine, Roman.

Dead languages ​​often persist in living use as a cult language for millennia after being forced out of other areas of communication. So, the Catholic Church still uses the Latin language, the Christians of Egypt - the Coptic language, the Buddhists of Mongolia - the Tibetan language. A more rare case is the simultaneous use of a cult language as a class and literary language, as Sanskrit was used in ancient India, Latin in medieval Europe, Church Slavonic in medieval Russia. The population of these regions in colloquial use used living languages, mostly dialects, and Latin, Sanskrit or Church Slavonic were used as the languages ​​of the church, science, culture, literature and inter-dialect communication. Under exceptional social conditions, it is possible for a dead cult language to become colloquial, as happened in Israel. The Hebrew language fell into disuse in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. and remained the language of religious practice and high-style spiritual and secular literature. However, in the second half of the XVIII century. it begins to revive as the language of educational and fiction, and from the second half of the 19th century. Hebrew also becomes a spoken language. Hebrew is currently the official state language in Israel.

The need for communication between representatives of different ethnic and linguistic groups gives rise to language contacts, which result in the interaction of two or more languages ​​that affect the structure and vocabulary of these languages. Contacts occur due to constantly repeating dialogues, constant communication between speakers of different languages, in which both languages ​​are used either simultaneously by both speakers, or separately by each of them. The results of contacts affect differently at different levels of the language, depending on the degree of entry of their elements into the global integral structure. The results of contacts affect differently at different levels of the language. The most frequent result of such contacts is the borrowing of a word from one language into another. One of the necessary conditions for the implementation of language contacts is bilingualism, or bilingualism. On the basis of bilingualism, the mutual influence of languages ​​occurs. According to the latest data of neurolinguistics, language contacts are carried out within each of the bilingual speakers in such a way that one hemisphere of the cerebral cortex speaks one language, while the other hemisphere understands or knows to a limited extent the second language. Through the channels of interhemispheric communication, the forms of one of the languages ​​that are in contact are transmitted to the other hemisphere, where they can be included in a text pronounced in another language, or have an indirect effect on the structure of this text.

In certain areas of the distribution of a language, linguistic changes can occur in different directions and lead to different results. Initially, minor changes in the language of two neighboring areas may accumulate over time, and eventually mutual understanding of people who speak these languages ​​becomes difficult, and sometimes impossible. This process is called differentiation in language development. The reverse process - the gradual erasure of differences between the two variants of the language system, culminating in complete coincidence, is called integration. These opposite processes are constantly taking place, but at different stages of history their relationship is not the same, each new era brings something new to these processes. Thus, the fragmentation of the tribe caused the fragmentation of languages. Separated parts of the tribes over time began to speak not quite like their former relatives: there was a process of differentiation of languages. If the main occupation of the population is hunting or cattle breeding, the process of differentiation occurs slowly, since the nomadic way of life forces individual clans and tribes to collide with each other; this constant contact of kindred tribes restrains centrifugal forces, prevents the endless fragmentation of the language. The striking similarity of many Turkic languages ​​is the result of the nomadic way of life of many Turkic peoples in the past; the same can be said about the Evenki language. Agriculture, or life in the mountains, greatly contributes to the differentiation of languages. So, in Dagestan and in the north of Azerbaijan, there are 6 relatively large peoples and more than 20 small ones, each speaking their own language. In general, in the absence of a developed economic exchange and the dominance of a subsistence economy, the processes of linguistic differentiation prevail over the processes of integration.

Thus, many changes in language, in particular, those arising as a result of language contacts, are initially carried out in speech, and then, repeated many times, they become a fact of language. The key figure in this case is a native speaker of a language or languages, a linguistic personality. Language personality they call any native speaker of a particular language, characterized on the basis of an analysis of the texts produced by him in terms of the use of language units in them to reflect his vision of reality and achieve certain goals as a result of speech activity. A linguistic personality or a person speaking is the central figure of modern linguistics. The very content of this term contains the idea of ​​obtaining knowledge about the individual and the author of texts, which is distinguished by its own character, ideas, interests, social and psychological preferences and attitudes. However, it is impossible to study each individual separately, therefore, knowledge about the speaker is usually generalized, a typical representative of a given linguistic community and a narrower speech community included in it, an aggregate or average native speaker of a given language, is analyzed. Knowledge about a typical speaker of any language can be integrated, as a result of which it is possible to draw conclusions about a representative of the human race, an integral property of which is the use of sign systems, the main of which is natural human language. The complexity of the approach to the study of language through the prism of a linguistic personality is presented in the fact that the language appears as a text produced by a specific individual, as a system used by a typical representative of a specific linguistic community, as a person’s ability to use language in general as the main means of communication.

Researchers come to the linguistic personality as a linguistic object in different ways: psycholinguistic - from the study of the psychology of language, speech and speech activity in normal and altered states of consciousness, linguodidactic - from the analysis of language learning processes, philological - from the study of the language of fiction.

Language is traditionally regarded as a tool and means of cognition of reality. Due to its complexity and versatility, the topic "Language and Cognition" is being developed from different points of view in modern areas of linguistics and philosophy.

W. Humboldt was the first to express the idea that language is the main tool for reflecting and cognizing reality: "A person surrounds himself with a world of sounds in order to reflect and process the world of objects."

In Russian linguistics, the problem of language and cognition was dealt with A.A. Potebnya. He revealed the deep, characteristic of the language, constantly operating mechanism of cognitive processes occurring in verbal thinking. A number of questions raised by Potebnya about the anthropomorphism of cognition, about the subjective and objective in cognition, about the influence of the means of cognition on the results of cognition, about the cognitive role of verbal thinking, were reflected in heated discussions in the science of the 20th century.

The acquisition and consolidation of new knowledge occurs in the practical activity of a person, which includes speech activity. Therefore, the cognitive role of language should be considered in unity with the practical activity of a person. As an instrument of knowledge and a natural sign system, language fixes the results of cognition in any area of ​​human activity. But the subject of linguistics cannot be mental achievements in certain areas of knowledge.

Linguistics is interested in the study of that side of the language, which provides reflection and consolidation in the signs of the results of the activities of the speaking collective.

In linguistics, the opinion has spread that the meanings of the words of a common language are "naive concepts", and the semantics of the language is a "naive picture of the world". Meanwhile, the concepts fixed in the language and the linguistic picture of the world are far from being naive; many scholars have written about it. In the semantics of the common language, the result of the development of the thought and speech of the people was deposited.

The first classification of objects and phenomena of the world is in the language. The concepts of common language reach a high degree of abstraction and elaboration. The meanings of commonly used words do not break semantic ties with the corresponding scientific categories: time, space, consciousness, thinking, reason, movement, conscience, pressure. The formation of such categories as subject, substance, object, object goes into common language.

Language is arranged in such a way that its entire mechanism serves to reflect and cognize reality.

Cognition of reality with the help of language is carried out in the process of everyday speech activity of people exchanging new information with each other, in various works of literature.

Researchers point to the language's own heuristic capabilities. With the help of language, a person can understand and assimilate new content, new concepts, create ideas about such phenomena and objects that he had never seen before, about which he had not heard or knew anything. Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "The sentence must, in the old expressions, give us a new meaning."

Man as a subject of knowledge is opposed to the surrounding world. A person can penetrate into this world and cognize it only by subjective means. Language is a subjective means of reflection and cognition of reality. This does not exclude the presence of objective content in it. The abstraction formed with the help of language is not divorced from reality. The material for abstractions is sensual forms of reflection of reality, directly connected with it.

The subjectivity of the language is manifested in the nature of the reflection of reality. With its separate signs, language dismembers what exists in reality and in sensory perception as a unity. Offer " white bird flies”, consisting of three words, corresponds to one object. Both in reality and in sensory perception, signs are not separated from objects. Language and our thinking isolate its attributes from the object and thereby make them separate, independent entities. Such isolation makes it possible to operate with them in various connections and relations with many other objects and phenomena. And, conversely, a word can represent many different objects and phenomena as a whole: forest, country, people, population, crowd, totality. With the help of language, the analysis and synthesis of reflected objects and phenomena of reality is carried out, and this is a necessary path to the knowledge of their essence.

Subjectivism is also manifested in the formation of the word.

The choice of a sign taken in the name is determined by the person's approach to the designated object, interest in it, specific social, cultural, and living conditions. But this subjectivity is corrected by the meaning of the word, which contains many features of the designated object. Between these poles - from a single feature, taken as the basis of the name, to a multitude of cognizable features, collective cognition moves.

The primary role in the cognition of reality is played by the form of language. It is in the form of "meet" and interact two opposing worlds - subjective and objective.

Genetically, the elements of the form of language reflect the established relationship between man and reality. Because of this, they cannot but be isomorphic to reality itself. The form itself is subjective, but thanks to it, elements of objective content can be alienated and assimilated from the mental stream. Form allows you to penetrate into the objective world and cognize it.

Cognition of reality is an endless movement by the subjective path to the objective state of things.

The expression of subjectivity is humanness, anthropomorphism of knowledge. Ways of human cognition of reality cannot but be humanoid, language is permeated with humanoid elements.

The sentence is built as a connection, the identity of the subject and the predicate. A.A. Potebnya noted: “The subject is called a thing as knowing and acting, that is, first of all, our self, then any thing that is likened in this respect to our self. We can express the action of the subject, that is, imagine it, only in a human-like way: it rains like a person walks. Every subject is a likeness of our self, every action is a likeness of our action.

In modern linguistics, the issue of the influence of the national language on the knowledge of the world remains debatable. Some scientists believe that the quality of thought depends on the means of its creation and expression. Therefore, the nature of thought, its depth, the possibilities of reflection and cognition of reality directly depend on the language. Since there is no language at all, but there are national languages ​​and their varieties, the knowledge and reflection of reality in the language is national. Each language has its own organization and division of the world. In related languages, articulation and organization will be more similar.

LANGUAGE AS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

AND AS A DIRECT REALITY OF THOUGHT

(Kasevich of General Linguistics. 1977)

Language is the most important means of transmitting and storing information: the main part of the information circulating in society exists precisely in linguistic form.

The transfer of information is one of the most important types and aspects of communication between people, so language is the most important means of human communication. It follows, in turn, that the central function of language is that of communication, or communicative.

It is known that there is another characteristic of language as the immediate reality of thought. Here another function of language is emphasized, namely reflective (mental): thinking, i.e., a person’s reflection of the world around him, is carried out mainly in a linguistic form. Otherwise, we can say that the function of the language is the generation (formation) of information. How do these two functions of the language relate?

It can be argued that the communicative function, or communication function, is primary, and the reflection function is secondary, while both functions are closely related. In fact, reflection of the external world does not in itself require a linguistic form: comparatively developed forms of reflection of the external world already exist in animals; the need for a linguistic form for the “products” of reflection arises precisely because these results of the reflection of mental activity must be communicated, transferred to other members of the human collective. The exchange of individual experience, the coordination of actions become possible thanks to the language, which is precisely the tool that allows you to "cast" the results of individual mental activity into generally significant forms.

The foregoing simultaneously means that the very reflective function of language is brought to life by its communicative function: if there were no need for communication, there would be, generally speaking, no need for a person to reflect the external world in a linguistic form.

Since the reflection of the external world at any higher levels always acts as a generalization in relation to the objects of reality and their properties, it can be said, following the fact that in the language "the unity of communication and generalization" is realized. This means that, on the one hand, language provides communication; on the other hand, the results of mental activity, activity to generalize the properties of reality, are developed and fixed precisely in the linguistic form. Every word generalizes, in other words, every word is the result of the abstracting work of thought (the word wood means "a tree in general"), and, conversely, an abstract concept, common to all members of a given collective, requires the presence of a word for its existence.

We can say that language, together with labor, created man: “First labor, and then articulate speech together with it, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the brain of a monkey turned into a human brain” (F. Engels. Dialectics of nature).

Without language, communication is impossible - therefore, the existence of society is impossible, and hence the formation of a human personality, the formation of which is conceivable only in a social collective. There are no universally valid concepts outside the language, and, of course, the existence of developed forms of generalization, abstraction is difficult, i.e., again, the formation of a human personality is virtually impossible.

The communicative function of language involves the semiotic (sign) aspect of its consideration. The study of the reflective function of language is closely related to the problem "Language and Thought". Consider the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to which a person’s thinking is determined by the language he speaks, and he cannot go beyond this language, since all a person’s ideas about the world are expressed through his native language. Opponents of this hypothesis point out that both a person's thinking and indirectly his language are determined by reality, the outside world, therefore, assigning the role of a determining factor in the formation of thinking to language is idealism.

The decisive role of external reality in the formation of human thinking, of course, is not subject to discussion. She is undeniable. However, one should take into account activity the processes of reflection of reality by a person: a person does not passively imprint the material that the outside world “supplies” to him, this material is organized in a certain way, structured by the perceiving subject; a person, as they say, "models" the external world, reflecting it by means of his psyche. This or that method of modeling is determined by the needs of a person, primarily social, industrial. It is quite natural that these needs, connected with the conditions of existence, may be different in different historically formed communities of people. To some extent, the ways of modeling reality differ accordingly. It manifests itself primarily in the language. Consequently, the specificity of the language here - contrary to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - is rather secondary, in any case, it is not primary: it cannot be said that the specificity of the language determines the specificity of thinking.

This is how it is in phylogeny, i.e. in the history of the formation and development of man (and his language). However, in ontogeny, i.e., in the individual development of a person, the situation is somewhat different. Each person acquires knowledge about the world, about external reality - reflects external reality to a very large extent not directly, but “through” language. A textbook example: the spectrum of emission and absorption of light waves, which determines color, is, of course, the same everywhere, and the physiological abilities of representatives of different ethnic groups for color perception do not differ; however, it is known that some peoples differ, for example, three colors, while others have seven or more. It is natural to ask the question: why, say, every African Shona(southeastern group of languages Bantu) learns to distinguish exactly three primary colors, no more and no less? Obviously, because in his language there are names for these three colors. Here, therefore, the language acts as a ready-made tool for one or another structuring of reality when it is displayed by a person.

Thus, when the question arises why in general in a given language there are so many names of flowers, types of snow, etc., the answer to it is that Russians, French, Indians, Nenets, etc. for their In practice, during the previous centuries (perhaps millennia), roughly speaking, it was “needed” to distinguish precisely the varieties of the corresponding objects, which was reflected in the language. Another question is this: why does each member of a linguistic community distinguish so many colors, etc., etc.? Here the answer is that this or that way of perceiving external reality is to a certain extent "imposed" on a particular individual by his language. In this respect, language is nothing but the crystallized social experience of a given collective, people. From this point of view, therefore, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is quite reasonable.

The above, of course, does not mean in any way that a person is not at all capable of cognizing something for which there is no designation in his language. The entire experience of the development of various peoples and their languages ​​shows that when the production and cognitive evolution of society creates the need to introduce a new concept, the language never prevents this - to designate a new concept, either an existing word is used with a certain change in semantics, or a new one is formed according to the laws of a given language. Without this, in particular, it would be impossible to imagine the development of science.

One more remark must be made in connection with the problems of "language and thinking". Even with the most concise consideration of this problem, the question arises of how close, how inseparable the connection between language and thinking is.

First of all, it must be said that in ontogeny (in a child) the development of speech and intellectual development are initially carried out “in parallel”, according to their own laws, while the development of speech turns out to be more connected with the emotional sphere, with the establishment of “pragmatic” contact with others. Only later, by the age of two, do the lines of speech and intellectual development “intersect”, enriching each other. A process begins, as a result of which thought receives a linguistic form and the opportunity to join through the language to the accumulated social experience; now language begins to serve not only the needs of elementary contact, but also, with the development of the individual, complex forms of self-expression, etc.

There is, therefore, a certain autonomy of language and thinking from the genetic point of view (ie, from the point of view of their origin and development), and at the same time their closest interconnection.

From our own experience, everyone knows that thinking does not always proceed in an expanded speech form. Does this mean that we have evidence (albeit intuitive) of the independence of thought from language? This is a difficult question, and so far only a preliminary answer can be given.

Much depends on how we interpret the concept of "thinking". If this term for us means not only abstract thinking, but also the so-called thinking in images, then it is quite natural that this latter - imaginative thinking - should not at all necessarily be verbal, verbal. In this sense, nonverbal thinking is obviously quite possible.

Another aspect of the same problem is related to the existence of such types of thinking, where the speech form is used, but appears as if reduced: only some of the most important elements do not remain, and everything that “goes without saying” does not receive speech form. This process of "compressing" linguistic means is reminiscent of a common practice in dialogues, especially in a well-known situation, when much that is taken as known is omitted. This is all the more natural in mental monologues, or “monologues for oneself,” that is, when there is no need to care about achieving understanding on the part of the interlocutor.

Such folded speech, which shapes thinking, is called inner speech. It is important to emphasize that inner speech is nevertheless a reduced “ordinary” speech, arises on its basis and is impossible without it (inner speech is absent in a child who has not yet mastered the language sufficiently).

Questions for the article

1. How do the basic functions of the language relate to each other? Comment on the statement of a famous Russian psychologist: “the unity of communication and generalization” is realized in the language.

2. What is the essence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

3. Answer, what is the interaction of language and thinking in phylogenesis (the history of the formation and development of a person and his language) and in ontogenesis (individual development of a person)?

4. What is "inner speech"? How is it different from normal speech?