At the end of the collection, the most revealing materials related to the problems of linguistic culture are presented. In his article, A. Jedlicka clearly distinguishes four ranges of phenomena included by Czech and Slovak linguists in the concept of language culture: a) phenomena related to language - here we are talking about language culture in the proper sense of the word; b) phenomena related to speech, utterance - sometimes this aspect is differentiated and terminologically, it is said about cultural speech. Moreover, in both areas (in the field of language and speech), two directions are equally distinguished: 1) culture as a state, level (of language and speech), 2) culture as an activity, i.e. cultivation (improvement) of language and speech.

Consequently, linguistic culture includes both the theoretical study of the literary language on the part of linguists, and a set of practical measures on the part of not only linguists, but also all people interested in a high level of linguistic communication. The scientific study of the literary language covers concern for its internal and social development, its optimal use in all vital areas, its improvement in accordance with systemic laws and norms. It is closely connected with the theory of the literary language, which was an important postulate of the Prague School. However, the problems of linguistic culture, relating primarily to the literary language, cannot be separated from the national language as a whole, from other forms of existence of the language. The improvement of the literary language is reflected in the whole language. This circumstance is connected with the attempts to create a new theory of the literary language, taking into account the modern language situation (we are talking about Slovak conditions), discussing the problems of stratification of national languages, determining the role of everyday colloquial forms, interdialects, substandards, etc.

At the same time, language culture is a purposeful activity to regulate the state of the language, improve the use of the literary language, which acts as a nationwide and mandatory form of communication and communication in the broadest sense of the word. Thus, linguistic culture has a complex character, which makes it necessary to distinguish between the culture of the literary language and the culture of expression, an integral part of the cultural behavior of a person in general, when the question of literary or non-literary means of expression, their relationship to the existing literary norm recedes into the background. Each language is original and unique. Each linguistic society treats its own language in its own way and strives to make its own demands on it. Naturally, these requirements are due both to the current state of the literary language and the shortcomings felt in it, and to the diverse factors of the formation and development of the language in previous eras. All this is reflected primarily in solving the problems of linguistic culture and in the style of a particular national language. In Czechoslovakia, linguists sought, first of all, to identify the boundaries between the literary language and other forms of language existence in order to more accurately determine the specifics of the literary language itself. The attention of Russianists was much more attracted by the study of the internal structure of the literary language, the relationship between written and spoken speech, and the functional styles of the literary language.

The article by J. Kachala raises the most important aspects of improving the Slovak literary language. The author consciously chose as the epigraph of his article the thought of A. M. Peshkovsky on the role of the literary language in the life of society from his article "An objective and normative point of view on the language." J. Kachala's considerations about the democratization of the literary language are timely: This is not a straightforward "simplification" of the literary language - such a practice would come into conflict with the fact of differentiation of the literary language and its means, which is a direct consequence of social differentiation, public "pressure" on the language. The democratization of the literary language should be understood rather as a targeted support of the main, widespread and understandable expressive means in the most important areas of social communication (these include publicistic speeches in oral and written form, specific incarnations of the scientific and practical style in oral and written form) and at the same time, as the exclusion of certain unacceptable expressions media from these central spheres of social communication. Such regulatory activity is dictated by the fact that broad layers of literary language speakers are actively or passively interested in these areas of communication. "In this regard, I would like to mention the speech of the late E. Paulini at a conference on topical issues of linguistic culture in a socialist society. In his opinion, Slovak "The literary language is going through a critical period. There has been a huge increase in the number of speakers and those who want to speak the literary language, the cultural level of the people has risen immeasurably. However, the existing methods of working in the field of the culture of Slovak literary speech are ineffective. The language situation urgently requires more flexible codification of lexical literary norms in order to bring them closer to the needs of speakers Slovak literary language.The search for more effective means of influencing language practice is the subject of articles by F. Danesh, K. Gauzenblas and J. Kucharz. .Danesha. The scheme of the process of codification is divided by the author into several stages: 1) descriptive (descriptive) - the establishment of the existing literary norm and its description; 2) regulatory (normative) - with the evaluation of language means and the actual codification. "Codification is a theoretically based application of the scientific study of language and its social functioning to the solution of practical problems of social communication"; 3) implementation stage. The author rightly believes that this stage is rather associated with methodological art and the need to rely on the authority of the normalizing institution. As for the relations of the members of the linguistic unity to the literary language, its norm and codification, there are some contrasts of an emotional nature that are not always taken into account by linguists. Among them are noted: 1) the antinomy of rational and irrational orientation; 2) the antinomy of actual linguistic behavior and their views on the literary language; 3) the contradiction between the true causes of linguistic behavior and put forward motives; 4) the contradiction between the negative and approving attitude to language changes; 5) the contradiction between isolationism and universalism; 6) the contradiction between unity and variance. The linguistic situation in a particular language sometimes highlights some of these features. Evaluation criteria for codification are: 1) normativity; 2) the adequacy of the language means and 3) consistency. Thus, the task of a linguist as a scientist, first of all, is to establish, describe and objectively analyze the entire dialectically complex situation of the literary language in a given era of its social existence and draw certain conclusions on this basis. However, a linguist as a citizen and a person cannot be indifferent to positions and values; he has the right to his own opinion on the literary language of the society of which he is a member; he is obliged to evaluate them and actively influence public practice. G. Gauzenblas in his article focused on the characteristics of the "culture of linguistic communication, communication", which is usually included in the language culture. The culture of linguistic communication, according to the author, covers the creation of linguistic statements (communicates) and the perception and interpretation of the latter, which allows taking into account the psycholinguistic aspects of activity speakers and listeners, perceiving communication.The author identifies a number of aspects of the culture of communication: linguistic correctness and stylistic polishing of communications, emphasizes their aesthetic function, notes the growth of stereotyping and standardization of texts, etc. J. Kucharzh, considering the problem of language regulation, shows the conditions for its solution in the Prague school, in particular in the interpretation of B. Gavranek.The controlling and regulatory influence of the subject on the object is characterized by varying degrees of effectiveness and socio-psychic obligation. The author singles out several forms of regulatory influence on language: 1) individual perception of a language example, model; 2) linguistic codification; 3) private normalizations, for example, terminology; 4) language policy (especially in multilingual states).

J. Kucharzh believes that it is the socialist society that provides exceptional opportunities in the sphere of a rational, scientifically based culture of speech, care for the literary language. It is no coincidence that it is precisely in the socialist states that such work acquires new features, being centralized in scientific institutions. Only in this way can a basis be created for further steps in deepening the theory of speech culture and the correct application of theoretical achievements in practice. Such is the rich palette of problems of the literary language of linguistic culture, which is currently being developed by Czechoslovak linguists.

According to F. Dostoevsky, "language is the people." The famous French writer A. Camus said: "My homeland is the French language."

Language is the main tool of knowledge and development of the external world. He also performs main means of human communication. Equally, language makes it possible to get to know other cultures.

Being inseparable from national cultures, languages ​​go with them through the same vicissitudes of fate. Therefore, starting from the New Age, as the world was redistributed into spheres of influence, many languages ​​of ethnic groups and peoples that fell into colonial and other dependence turned out to be more and more squeezed from the historical scene.

Today, this situation has become even more complicated. If in the past the problem of survival concerned mainly the languages ​​of dependent and lagging behind in their development countries and peoples, now it also affects the developed European countries. This is caused by the growing expansion of the English (American) language, which is increasingly becoming a universal means of communication. For this reason, mixed, hybrid languages ​​​​are emerging, an example of which is the so-called "franglet" or "franglish", which is a bizarre mixture of French and English.

In this case, of course, not only the language suffers, but the entire national culture, which in its own country becomes secondary, secondary. What happens is what Western theorists call "folklorization" European cultures, when they begin to take the place of folklore, move into the category of local exotics. In a particularly acute and painful situation, he is experiencing France, which for three centuries - from the middle of the XVII to the middle of the XX century. - was rightfully considered the first cultural power, and its language occupied a special, privileged place. However, by the middle of our century, the position of the French language and culture is deteriorating significantly. In contrast to this, the international movement of Francophonie is emerging, the main goal of which is the protection, preservation and dissemination of the French language and culture.

In the history of Western Europe, French turned out to be the third language that managed to become the universal language of international communication. Before him, only Greek and Latin achieved such status. Approximately in the X century. French in its meaning begins to become more and more equal to Latin. Starting from the 17th century. it spreads all over the world, and with it the French culture, whose influence in the XVIII century. reaches unprecedented strength. The entire enlightened elite of Europe and America, including Russia, speaks and reads French. For secular ladies, knowledge of the French language and playing the harpsichord are considered mandatory in all countries.

The expression "French Europe", put into circulation by the Italian diplomat Caraccioli, is quickly becoming generally accepted. Period from 1889 to 1914 is considered the golden age of the expansion of French culture to all countries and continents. Paris becomes the capital of world art. Many creators accept the well-known formula, according to which every artist has two homelands: one is his own, and the second is Paris.

However, in the XX century. fortune turns away from the French language. Already in 1918, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, it loses its monopoly of being the only language of international diplomacy. Even more serious losses were caused by the unfavorable outcome of the Second World War for France. Started in the late 1950s the process of disintegration of the colonial system exacerbated the situation. as many former French colonies were abandoning the French language.

The French language gave way to English (American) in its privileged place. It is under such conditions that francophonie. It currently spans over 50 countries and has adherents on all five continents. Although its whole purpose is the protection, preservation and prosperity of the French language and culture, it does not claim to restore their former priority. In equal measure, she does not dispute the established primacy of the English language, but opposes its complete domination, against the displacement of other languages ​​by it. Francophonie stands for the preservation and development of all languages ​​and cultures, for their fruitful coexistence and mutual enrichment.

However, the languages ​​of small ethnic groups and peoples are objectively in an even more difficult position. For them, not bilingualism, but rather multilingualism is becoming the only way out of the emerging linguistic situation in the modern world.

Exploring the meaning of language in culture

Each local is formed in specific historical and natural conditions, will create its own picture of the world, its own image of a person and its own language of communication. Each culture has its own language system, with the help of which its speakers communicate with each other, but this is not only the purpose and role of language in culture. Outside of language, culture is simply impossible, since language forms this foundation, this internal basis. Through language, people transmit and fix symbols, norms, customs, transmit information, scientific knowledge and behaviors, beliefs, ideas, feelings, values, attitudes. This is how socialization occurs, which is expressed in the assimilation of cultural norms and the development of social roles, without which a person cannot live in society. Thanks to language, coherence, harmony and stability are achieved in society.

The role of language in the processes of human communication has been the subject of scientific analysis since the beginning of the New Age. It was studied by D. Vico, I. Herder, W. Humboldt and others, thus laying the foundations of linguistics. Today language is also studied by psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Great success in the study of language and speech communication was brought by the 20th century, when scientists connected language and culture.

The pioneers in the study of the relationship between language and culture were the American cultural anthropologist F. Boas and the British social anthropologist B. Malinovsky. Boas pointed out this connection as early as 1911, illustrating it by comparing two cultures through their vocabulary. So, for most North Americans, snow is just a weather phenomenon and in their lexicon only two words denote this concept: “snow” (snow) and “slush” (slush), and in the Eskimo language there are more than 20 words that describe snow in different states . From this it is clear what is important in each of these cultures.

A significant contribution to understanding the relationship between language and culture was made by the famous linguistic hypothesis Sapir-Whorf, according to which language is not just a tool for reproducing thoughts, it itself forms our thoughts, moreover, we see the world the way we speak. To come to this idea, scientists analyzed not the composition of different languages, but their structures (European languages ​​and the Hopi language). For example, it was found that in the Hopi language there is no division into past, present and future tenses; and the English sentence "He stayed for ten days" in the Hopi language corresponds to the sentence "He stayed until the eleventh day." Using examples of this type, Whorf explains the relationship between culture and language.

The significance of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis should not be exaggerated: in the final analysis, the content of a person's thoughts and his ideas is determined by their subject. A person is able to live in the real world precisely because life experience forces him to correct errors of perception and thinking when they conflict. Therefore, culture lives and develops in a “language shell”, and not a “shell” dictates the content of culture. But one should not underestimate the role of the connection between language, thought and culture. It is the language that serves as the basis of the picture of the world that develops in every person and puts in order a lot of objects and phenomena observed in the world around. Any object or phenomenon is accessible to a person only when they have a name. Otherwise, they simply do not exist for us. Having given them a name, a person includes a new concept in the grid of concepts that exists in his mind, in other words, he introduces a new element into the existing picture of the world. We can say that language is not only a means of communication or a stimulus of emotions. Each language not only reflects the world, but builds an ideal world in the mind of a person, constructs reality. Therefore, language and worldview are inextricably linked.

In cultural literature language meaning most commonly rated as:

• a mirror of culture, which reflects not only the real, surrounding world, but also the mentality of the people, their national character, traditions, customs, morality, the system of norms and values, the picture of the world;
• a pantry, a piggy bank of culture, since all the knowledge, skills, material and spiritual values ​​accumulated by the people are stored in its language system - folklore, books, in oral and written speech;
• the bearer of culture, because it is with the help of language that it will be passed on from generation to generation. Children in the process of culture, mastering their native language, along with it master the generalized experience of previous generations;
• an instrument of culture that forms the personality of a person who, through language, perceives the mentality, traditions and customs of his people, as well as a specific cultural image of the world.

In addition, language:

• facilitates the adaptation of a person in environmental conditions;
• helps to correctly evaluate objects, phenomena and their correlation, helps to identify objects of the surrounding world, their classification and ordering of information about it;
• contributes to the organization and coordination of human activity.

Culture is transmitted through language, the ability to which distinguishes man from all other creatures. Thanks to language, culture is possible as the accumulation and accumulation of knowledge, as well as their transfer from the past to the future. Therefore, a person, unlike animals, does not start anew his development in each next generation. If he did not possess any skills and abilities, his behavior would be regulated by instincts, and he himself would practically not stand out from the environment of other animals. It can be argued that language is both a product of culture, and its important component, and a condition for its existence.

It also means that between the language and the real world there is a person - a native speaker of the language and culture. It is he who realizes and perceives the world through the senses, creates on this basis his ideas about the world. They, in turn, are rationally comprehended in concepts, judgments and conclusions that can be transferred to other people. Therefore, thinking stands between the real world and language.

The word reflects not the object or phenomenon of the surrounding world itself, but how a person sees it, through the prism of the picture of the world that exists in his mind and which is determined by his culture. The consciousness of each person is formed both under the influence of his individual experience, and as a result, during which he masters the experience of previous generations. We can say that language is not a mirror that accurately reflects everything around, but a prism through which one looks at the world and which is different in every culture. Language, thinking and culture are so closely interconnected that they practically form a single whole and cannot function without each other.

The path from the real world to the concept and the expression of this concept in the word is different for different nations, being determined by natural, climatic conditions, as well as the social environment. Due to these circumstances, each nation has its own history, its own cultural and linguistic picture of the world. At the same time, the cultural picture of the world is always richer than the linguistic one. But it is in language that the cultural picture of the world is realized, verbalized, stored and transmitted from generation to generation.

In this process, words are not just the names of objects and phenomena, but a fragment of reality, passed through the prism of the cultural picture of the world and due to this, it has acquired specific features inherent in this people. Therefore, where a Russian person sees two colors - blue and blue, an Englishman sees only one color - blue, although both look at the same part of the spectrum, i.e. language imposes a certain vision of the world on a person. One and the same fragment of reality, one and the same concept has different forms of linguistic expression in different languages. Therefore, when studying a foreign language, the words of this language, the student gets acquainted with an element of someone else's picture of the world and tries to combine it with his own picture of the world, given by his native language. This is one of the main difficulties in learning a foreign language.

Language practice shows that the language is not a mechanical appendage of any culture, since in this case the potential of the language would be limited to only one culture and the language could not be used in intercultural communication. In fact, one of the leading properties of the language is its universality, which allows a person to use the language as a means of communication in all potentially possible situations of communication, including in relation to other cultures.

Most of the problems arise when translating information from one language to another. Obviously, an absolutely accurate translation is impossible because of the different pictures of the world created by different languages. The most frequent case of linguistic inconsistency is the absence of an exact equivalent for the expression of a particular concept, and even the absence of the concept itself. This is due to the fact that the concepts or objects denoted by such terms are unique to a given culture, are absent in other cultures and, therefore, do not have terms to express them. So, in the Russian language there are no concepts of “ale” or “whiskey”, which means that there are no corresponding words in the Russian language. At the same time, there are no words for pancakes, borscht, vodka, etc. in English. If necessary, such concepts are expressed using borrowings. There are not very many nolexical borrowings in the lexicon of any language (usually no more than 6-7%).

Perhaps the most difficult situations in intercultural communication are situations when the same concept is expressed in different ways - redundantly or insufficiently - in different languages ​​(remember our example of color in Russian and English). The problem is that the meaning of a word is not limited to just one lexical concept (word denotation), but largely depends on its lexical and phraseological compatibility and connotation - the cultural representation of the people about certain objects and phenomena of reality. A complete coincidence of the named aspects of the word is practically impossible, and therefore it is impossible to translate words only with the help of a dictionary, which gives a long list of possible meanings of the translated word. When studying a foreign language and using it in communication, one should memorize and use words not separately, according to their meanings, but in natural, most stable combinations inherent in this language.

For example, "victory" can only be "winned", "role" - "play", "meaning" - "have". Russian "strong tea" in English will be "strong tea" (strong tea), and "strong rain" - "heavy rain" (heavy rain). These examples of lexico-phraseological combination of words, natural and familiar in the native language, will be incomprehensible to a foreigner (if he translates them using a dictionary).

In addition, there is a problem of inconsistency between the cultural ideas of different peoples about certain objects and phenomena of reality, which are indicated by the equivalent words of these languages ​​(connotation). For example, the phrase "green eyes" in Russian is very poetic, suggestive of magical eyes. But his own phrase in English (green eyes) serves as a figurative synonym for feelings of envy and jealousy, which W. Shakespeare called the "green-eyed monster" in the tragedy "Othello".

The word as a unit of language is correlated with the designated object or phenomenon of the real world. However, in different cultures, this correspondence may be different, since these objects or phenomena themselves, and cultural ideas about them, may be different. For example, the English term "house" differs from the Russian concept of "house". For us, home means a place of residence, a place of work, any building and institution. For an Englishman, the concept of "house" means only a building or structure, and the hearth is conveyed by the word "home". This means that in Russian the concept of "house" is wider than the concept of "house" in English.

At present, the generally accepted point of view is that in the culture and language of each people there are both universal and national components. Universal meanings, equally understood by all people in the world or representatives of individual cultures, create the basis for intercultural communication; without them, intercultural understanding would be impossible in principle. At the same time, in any culture there are specific cultural meanings fixed in language, moral norms, beliefs, behavior patterns, etc. The connection between language, thinking and culture demonstrated above is part of the developed in the 20th century. semiotic approach to culture, considering culture as a set of signs and texts.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Language and culture. linguoculturology

Introduction

At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, the anthropological trend dominated in the humanities. According to the anthropocentric paradigm, we "see the world through the prism of man", our activities in it. This can be confirmed by the example of metaphors: “snowflakes are dancing; mother winter; years go by”, “the world, having awakened, started; azure heaven laughs ”(F. Tyutchev). An anthropocentric order of things is formed in the mind of a person, which determines his values. In this regard, the linguistic personality becomes the center of attention of linguistics. [Maslova, p. 4]

In line with the anthropological trend, research was carried out combining linguistic, cultural and ethnographic approaches. There was a movement of linguistics to identify the mechanisms of interaction of such fundamental systems as language, culture, national mentality, communication and consciousness. Linguistics has developed and continues to develop now in the direction from internal to external, implying the study of language not only within its system, but also in its connection with human thinking. [F. de Saussure] The result of this development is the emergence of a new science - cultural linguistics.

Now this science is in its infancy, many of its components are still in the process of reflection and discussion by various researchers.

The purpose of the work is to consider the relationship between language and culture and to study different approaches to this problem in linguistics.

The relevance of this study is explained by the fact that ... Economic, cultural and scientific contacts of countries and their peoples make relevant topics related to the study of intercultural communications, the relationship of languages ​​and cultures, the study of linguistic personality ... and also the fact that ... In the process of learning a language, communicating in this language is indispensable without culture. To teach verbal communication, it is necessary to find out how language and culture are related and how to show this relationship in the learning process.

Since linguoculturology is a rather young direction in linguistics, most of the works that consider the relationship between language and culture date back to the 20th-21st century.

The forerunner of this direction can be called W. von Humboldt, who considered language in its relationship with a person, a nation.

One of the most important functions of the language can be called its participation in the creation, development, storage and transmission of culture. It is thanks to this relationship between culture and language that such a direction in linguistics as linguoculturology appeared.

linguoculturology(from Latin: lingua - language, cultura - culture, logos - science, teaching) - a modern developing science that arose at the intersection of linguistics and cultural studies. She studies language as a cultural phenomenon that expresses the mentality of the nation. In other words, how the culture of the people is reflected in their language. [Maslova, p. 1-6]

Such sciences as ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics are closely connected with linguoculturology. [Maslova, p. 6] Moreover, ethnolinguistics is the theoretical foundation of cultural linguistics. This is "a direction in linguistics that studies the language in its relation to culture, the interaction of linguistic, ethno-cultural and ethno-psychological factors in the functioning and evolution of the language" [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1990, p. 597].

However, the linguoculturological paradigm, in contrast to ethnolinguistics based on a diachronic approach, studies the interaction of language and culture from the point of view of synchrony. [Dictionary, p. 49] Among the prominent ethnolinguists are W. Von Humboldt, F. Boas, D.K. Zelenina, A.A. Potebnya.

The field of activity of sociolinguistics is narrower than that of linguoculturology, this science studies the relationship between language and society precisely from the standpoint of the characteristics of the language of different social and age groups. [Maslova, p. eight]

Also closely related to linguoculturology can be called ethnopsycholinguistics. Their main difference is that the main method of research in ethnopsycholinguistics is an associative experiment, while linguoculturology uses various linguistic and psycholinguistic methods.

The sciences close to linguoculturology are contrastive linguistics and linguocultural studies. However, linguoculturology is focused not so much on fixing cultural and etymological information about the history of a word or expression, but on the study of “ethnic logic”, which is expressed by the internal form of a word, the study of the semantics and pragmatics of a linguistic sign. [Dictionary, p. 49]

O object the study of linguoculturology - the relationship and interaction of culture and language in the process of its functioning and the study of the interpretation of this interaction.

Thingohm the study of linguoculturology is language and culture in their interaction.

One of the most significant concepts in linguoculturology is the concept of culture. It needs to be defined.

culture from the Latin colere means "cultivation, education, development, veneration, cult."

According to Sapir, culture is “a socially inherited set of practical skills and ideas that characterize our way of life” [Sapir, 1993, p. 185]

Maslova characterizes culture as everything that appeared due to human activity, his purposeful reflections [Maslova, p. nine]

According to V.V. Vorobyov culture is "a system of material and spiritual values". He calls the main purpose of culture its ability to spiritually enrich the individual. [Vorobiev, p. 20-21]

A developing personality cannot do without communication, a dialogue of cultures. Based on this relationship, the central triad of linguoculturology is formed: "language - national personality - culture". [Sparrows]

W. von Humboldt was one of the first to say about this connection: “Language is a world lying between the world of external phenomena and the inner world of a person.” He argued that every nation expresses itself in language. [Humboldt, 1956, p. 348]

Understanding language as an intermediate world, its followers, representatives of neo-Humboldtism, first of all, the head of this linguistic school - L. Weisgerber

The culture of mankind is a combination of ethnic cultures, each of which has its own characteristics, is distinguished by ethnic identity. Differences in ethnic cultures are manifested, for example, in the way people work, rest, eat, and speak. For example, it is believed that the most important feature of Russians is collectivism (collectivism according to Dostoevsky), therefore they are distinguished by a sense of belonging to a particular society, warmth and emotionality of relationships. This feature of mentality and culture is reflected in the Russian language. According to A. Vezhbitskaya, "the Russian language pays much more attention to emotions (than English) and has a much richer repertoire of lexical and grammatical expressions to distinguish between them." [Maslova, p. 7-8]

Under the influence of social factors in the language, in its lexical, phonetic and grammatical level, changes occur. Changes are most clearly seen in the vocabulary of the language. There are many examples of this. So in the article by E. Sapir "Language and Environment" the author says that in the vocabulary of the language of "coastal peoples", such as the Nootka Indians on the American coast or the Basque fishermen living in southwestern France and northern Spain, there is many designations for different types of marine animals. In contrast, the languages ​​of the desert plateau dwellers have a huge number of words for various detailed geographic features, such as a waterless canyon; canyon with a small river; the slope of a mountain or canyon illuminated by the sun; the slope of a mountain or canyon that is not illuminated by the sun; hilly area, crossed by several ridges. This is due to the interest of people in these specific properties of their environment.

However, the national character of culture and the features that the language acquires depending on the factors of the social environment do not at all imply the separation of languages ​​from each other, on the contrary, it implies the interaction of languages ​​and cultures of different peoples, their mutual enrichment to world culture. Such strong changes are possible mainly in the languages ​​of primitive peoples, since the level of their culture is not able to take into account a variety of interesting societies.

It should also be noted that the relationship of language, race and culture does not at all imply their direct causal mediation. Thus, the boundaries of race, culture and language do not always coincide. The well-known linguist E. Sapir, considering this problem, cited as an example the English language, which cannot be called the language of a single race: it is spoken as a native language by representatives of the Baltic, Alpine, Mediterranean and other races. In addition, it spreads around the world, penetrates into other cultures.

Semiotic model of learning language and culture

According to the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, semiotics is “a scientific discipline that studies the general in the structure and functioning of various sign (semiotic) systems that store and transmit information.” Language and culture can also be attributed to such systems.

In the words of W. Eco: "Semiotics explores all cultural processes as processes of communication."

G. Klaus singled out four aspects of the model of semiotic description of objects:

sign - sign = syntax

sign - meaning = semantics

sign - object = sigma

sign - man = pragmatics

The semiotic model can be represented by the example of the bath phenomenon. The linguistic semantics of the word reveals only the realem of the object - the unchanging and essential, inherent in all objects of this class. [Tolstoy, 1968, p. 29] For example, in the "Dictionary of the Russian language" S.I. Ozhegov, the definition of a bath is “a special room or institution where they wash and steam”. The notion of a bathhouse as an object of material culture, the extralinguistic semantics of this phenomenon are given to us by dictionaries of an encyclopedic type. In the "Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" V.I. Dahl: "steam, Russian bath, building or rest, where they wash and bathe, not just in dry heat, but in steam." Dal also lists important parts of the Russian bath - "a furnace with cobblestones (heater) or with cannonballs and cast-iron chimney (cast iron), ... shelves with steps and a head, ... benches around the walls on which they wash, vats of hot and cold water" and etc.

Thus, linguoculturological interpretations reveal the national specificity of the defined class of objects, allow us to analyze the object of culture expressed in the language.

The syntactics of the semiotic field contains the structural characteristics of its units. Paradigmatic characteristics indicate their systemic, non-linear relationships, their significance in the paradigm, while syntagmatic characteristics indicate the characteristic linear, functional relationships of units, their positions in the text, and typical compatibility. These rows reflect the characteristic use of what is designated as a cultural object. For linguoculturology, the linguistic and extralinguistic (cultural) nature of the use of the realities themselves is important. The paradigmatic row of the field is formed by hyponymic relations (BATH): black bath, sauna, bathroom, dressing room, shelves, stove (heater, cast iron), steam room, shelves, gangs, benches, vats, basins, brooms.

History of cultural linguistics

As a separate direction in linguistics, linguoculturology took shape in the 90s of the XX century. The term "linguoculturology" itself appeared only in the last decade in connection with the works of the phraseological school headed by V.N. Telia, works by Yu.S. Stepanova, A.D. Arutyunova, V.V. Vorobiev, V. Shaklein, V.A. Maslova and other researchers. [Maslova, p. 6]

One of the first to consider language precisely from the point of view of its connection with a person, with a nation in the 19th century. W. von Humboldt in his work "On the difference in the structure of human languages ​​and its influence on the spiritual development of the human race." He initiated the anthropological trend in linguistics.

Humboldt introduced the concept of "linguistic consciousness of the people". The linguistic consciousness of the people can be understood as a form of existence of human ideas, knowledge and concepts reflected in the language. Humboldt believed that “each language describes a circle around the people to which it belongs, from which you can only get out if you enter another circle”, that is, you learn another language.

Also one of the first, in contrast to the metaphysical understanding of the existence of language as something immutable, Humboldt argues and substantiates the position that the true form of the existence of a language is its development. [Humboldt, p. 10-11]

Among the first followers of Humboldt can be called a linguist and philosopher A.A. Potebnya, who in his work "Thought and Language" in 1824 considered the relationship between language and thinking. He argued that "Without the word, man would remain a savage"

Bibliography

linguoculturology anthropological humanitarian language

1. Language, consciousness, communication: Sat. articles / Redkol. M.L. Kovshova, V.V. Krasnykh, A.I. Izotov, I.V. Zykov. Moscow: MAKS Press, 2013. Issue. 46. ​​ISBN 978-5-317-04486-2 48 Dictionary of linguistic and cultural terms: idea, principles, scheme, prototype1

2. Maslova "Lingvoculturology"

3. W. Von Humboldt. Selected works on linguistics: Per. with him. / Common ed. G.V. Ra - Mishvili; Afterword A.V. Gulygi and V.A. Zvegintsev. - M.: OJSC IG "Progress", 2000. - 400 p.

4. Kovshova M.L. Linguistic and cultural method in phraseology. Culture codes. M.: URSS, 2012. - 456 p.

5. V.M. Shaklein Linguoculturology. Tradition and innovation. Monograph (think about what you took from here)

6. V.V. Vorobyov Lingvoculturology

7. Ferdinand de Saussure "Course of General Linguistics" - there is a quote from there, and if you write about what he wrote, that you cannot judge a people by language

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The transition of linguistics to the anthropological paradigm. Linguoculturology as a science of the relationship and interaction of culture and language in its functioning. Docking of linguistics and cultural studies through the text, the concept of supertext and its varieties.

abstract, added 09/04/2009


Sciences that study language as a cultural phenomenon: ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics. Approaches to the study of culture, tasks of linguoculturology. Views of scientists on the problem of the influence of language on culture. Analysis of the language function of communication in human communities.

abstract, added 02/11/2016


Cultural linguistics as a science that studies the relationship between language and culture. Subject, stages of formation and main categories of cognitive linguistics: concept and picture of the world. Gaps and non-equivalent units as a way of expressing national and cultural identity.

term paper, added 12/05/2010


Theoretical foundations for the formation of linguoculturological competence. Characteristics of linguoculturology of the Bashkir language and analysis of the possibilities of the competence-based approach. Fundamentals of the program standard for teaching the Bashkir language in elementary school.

thesis, added 06/16/2010


Linguoculturology as a science and academic discipline (object, subject, purpose and tasks of the course). Terminological and gender apparatus of linguoculturology. Linguistic entities (phraseology, metaphor, stereotype) as a way to study regional differences.

abstract, added 03/23/2014


Linguistics as a science. Linguoculturology and concepts. Interpretive theory of translation. The need for cultural knowledge in the activities of a translator. Types of film translation, features of off-screen translation. Analysis of the translation of assembly sheets.

thesis, added 07/28/2017


A comprehensive study of linguistic and sociocultural processes in their functional interaction in the course of the historical development of society. Study of the main problems of the relationship between language and culture in linguistics. Communication of language and society, forms of its expression.

control work, added 10/11/2013


Cultural and historical nature of the Russian language. Language as a component of scientific knowledge. Specialized language as a tool of scientific knowledge. Living speech and the possibilities of formalization in the language of the natural sciences. Some features of the language of the humanities.

abstract, added 09/23/2014


Skvortsov's article "Language of communication and culture (ecology and language)" is devoted to the problem of the state of the modern literary language and Russian speech, questions of the ecology of culture and subjects of linguistic ecology, factors in the development of the modern Russian language.

abstract, added 05/05/2008


Consideration of linguoculturology as a new knowledge. Reflection of language in the picture of the world. Typologies of lacunae according to Sternin and methods for their detection. English-Russian and Russian-English language gaps, non-equivalent units of the thematic group "Professions and occupations".

The problem of "language and culture" is one of the debatable and not fully resolved in linguistics. First of all, the question is what is culture? Representatives of the American school of "cultural anthropology" consider culture as the sum of all non-biological aspects of human life. Socio- and psycholinguistics, as well as historical materialism, propose to consider culture dissected, i.e. in its material and spiritual aspects. “Material culture is a set of material, visible products of human labor,” writes the philosopher P. N. Fedoseev in the article “Some Issues in the Development of Soviet Linguistics,” “spiritual culture is the production, distribution and consumption of spiritual values.” Material and spiritual culture are in organic unity.

Although the concept of "culture" is one of the fundamental ones in modern social science, it has many semantic shades and a variety of interpretations, indicating the complexity of this phenomenon. Different definitions of culture speak eloquently about this, cf.: culture is “the unity of the artistic style in all manifestations of the life of the people” (F. Nietzsche); these are “forms of behavior habitual for a group, community of people, society” (K. Jung); it is “a specific way of thinking, feeling and behaving” (T. Elliot); it is “a set of achievements and institutions that have distanced our life from the life of animal-like ancestors and serve two purposes: protecting man from nature and streamlining people's relationships with each other” (3. Freud); it is “a mechanism that creates a set of texts” (Yu. Lotman), it is “a single cut that passes through all spheres of human activity” (M. Mamardashvili); it is “the state of the spiritual life of society” (M. Kim); "a set of certain values" (B. Sukhodolsky), cf. also the skeptical judgment of L. N. Tolstoy, expressed by him in the epilogue of the novel "War and Peace": "Spiritual activity, enlightenment, civilization, culture, idea - all these are unclear, indefinite concepts."

How can one explain such a variety of interpretations of culture? First of all, by the fact that culture is a creation of man, therefore, it reflects all the depth and immensity of his being: just as a person is inexhaustible and diverse, so is his culture, cf. in this regard, the definition of culture, which is given by the famous French culturologist A. de Benois: “Culture is the specificity of human activity, that which characterizes a person as a species. The search for a person before culture is in vain; his appearance on the arena of history should be considered as a phenomenon of culture. It is deeply connected with the essence of man, is part of the definition of man as such. In addition, the understanding of culture is largely determined by the research setting of the scientist, since culture is the object of study of various sciences: cultural studies, philosophy, history, sociology, etc.

The question of the relationship between the concepts of "language" and "culture" is also debatable: some scientists believe that language relates to culture as a part of the whole, others - that language is only a form of expression of culture, others - that language is neither a form nor an element of culture. . As an illustration of the different solutions to this problem, one can cite the statements of the two largest representatives of cultural studies, the founders of the American and Russian schools of ethnolinguistics - E. Sapir and N. I. Tolstoy: “Culture,” says E. Sapir, “can be defined as what a given society does and thinks, language is what as thinks." “The relationship between culture and language,” writes N. I. Tolstoy, “can be considered as a relationship between the whole and its part. Language can be perceived as a component of culture or an instrument of culture (which is not the same thing), especially when it comes to the literary language or the language of folklore. However, language is at the same time autonomous in relation to culture as a whole, and it can be considered separately from culture (which is done all the time) or in comparison with culture as an equivalent and equal phenomenon.

The achievements of such areas in linguistics as ethno- and psycholinguistics indicate that language as a social phenomenon should be attributed to the sphere of spiritual culture and considered as one of its components. At the same time, one cannot but admit that there are a number of areas of culture - music, choreography, fine arts, which are not directly related to the language.

If we understand culture as a process and product of spiritual production focused on the creation, storage, dissemination and consumption of spiritual values, norms, knowledge, ideas, then it should be recognized that it is the language that contributes to the formation of the spiritual world of society and man, providing them with a differentiated system of knowledge, contributing to spiritual integration of both society as a whole and its various groups. The language, therefore, "acts as a kind of concentrate of the culture of the nation, embodied in various groups of this cultural and linguistic community" . However, language serves not only the sphere of spiritual culture, it is directly related to material culture, production, social relations, it is a means of communication, a weapon of struggle, i.e. acts as an integral element of the social sphere. Despite this, "it should be recognized that the language is basically a phenomenon of spiritual culture" .

So, language is a kind of foundation of culture, because with the help of language there is an assimilation of cultural norms and social roles, without which human life in society is impossible.

Culturologists characterize the relationship between language and culture as follows: language is a mirror of culture, which reflects not only the real surrounding world of a person, but also the mentality of the people, i.e. his specific way of perceiving the world, his national character, traditions, customs, morality, system of norms and values, picture of the world;

language is a pantry, a piggy bank of culture, since all the knowledge, skills, material and spiritual values ​​accumulated by the people are stored in its language system, in oral and written speech. Thanks to this, a person does not start his development anew each time, but assimilates the experience of previous generations;

language is the bearer of culture, because thanks to the epistemic function of language, it is transmitted from generation to generation, and children, mastering their native language, also master the generalized experience of previous generations;

language contributes to the identification of objects of the surrounding world, their classification and ordering of information about it;

language facilitates human adaptation to environmental conditions; language helps to correctly assess objects, phenomena and their relationship; language contributes to the organization and coordination of human activity;

language is an instrument of culture that forms the personality of a person who, through language, perceives the traditions and customs of his people, a specific cultural image of the world.

In this interaction of language and culture, the following aspects can be distinguished:

• - culture in the language, i.e. reflection in linguistic texts and in the linguistic means themselves of a certain cultural content associated with the worldview of the ethnic group, the mental categorization of the natural world and society, beliefs and (or) faith;
• - language in culture, i.e. the use of language formulas as an integral part of cultural attitudes (for example, formulas of etiquette behavior, including the choice of pronouns when addressing, forms of personal names, certain forms of verbs and nroch.);
• - culture of language and speech, i.e. the practice of fighting for the purity of the language, since a person's speech reflects two sides of his spiritual personality: linguistic competence, i.e. the amount of language proficiency, and cultural competence, i.e. the degree of inclusion in the norms of culture, which constitutes the spiritual life of society;
• - the language of culture, i.e. a system of basic concepts of national culture that permeate its various material and spiritual forms (for example, a life ~ death, war ~ world, good ~ evil and etc.) .

As a set of material and spiritual values ​​of society, culture is mediated by human mental activity. At the same time, the instrument of human mental activity is language.

In this regard, the question arises: how do language - thinking ~ culture relate to each other. This question has a different solution. Some scientists believe that language is a determining factor in relation to thinking and, consequently, to culture; others proceed from the recognition of the independence of language and thinking, since the content side of linguistic units and grammatical categories has an extralogical character.

The idea that language in a certain way influences human thinking was first expressed by W. Humboldt: “A person mainly ... lives with objects in the way that language presents them to him. By the same act by which he weaves language within himself, he weaves himself into it; and each language describes a circle around the people to which it belongs, from which it is given to a person to leave only insofar as he immediately enters the circle of another language.

This point of view is shared by representatives of European neo-Humboldtianism (L. Weisgerber, G. Goltz, G. Ipsen, P. Hartman, etc.) * In American ethnolinguistics, this idea underlies the work of E. Sapir "Language": "People live not only in the material world and not only in the social world, as is commonly thought: to a large extent, they are all in the power of that specific language that has become a means of expression in a given society. The notion that a person navigates the external world essentially without the help of language and that language is just an accidental means of solving specific problems of thinking and communication is just an illusion. In reality, however, the “real world” is largely unconsciously built on the basis of the linguistic habits of a particular social group... The worlds in which different societies live are different worlds, and not at all the same world with various labels ... We see, hear and generally perceive the world around us in this way and not otherwise, mainly due to the fact that our choice in interpreting it is predetermined by the language habits of our society. This idea was most vividly expressed in the hypothesis of linguistic relativity by E. Sapir and his student B. Whorf.

Its main provisions are as follows:

language determines the nature (type) of thinking, its very logical structure.

Thus, speaking about the relationship between the grammatical structure of a language and the process of logical thinking, B. Whorf writes: “It was found that the basis of the language system of any language (in other words, grammar) is not just a tool for reproducing thoughts. On the contrary, grammar itself forms thought, is a program and guidance for the mental activity of an individual, a means of analyzing his impressions and synthesizing them. The formation of thoughts is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense of the word, but part of the grammar of a particular language and differs among different peoples in some cases slightly, in others very significantly, just like the grammatical structure of the respective peoples ”;

the nature of the cognition of reality depends on the languages ​​in which the cognizing subjects think, so that with significant differences in the languages ​​they use, the process of their cognitive activity and its results will also differ significantly from each other. “We dissect nature in the direction suggested by our native language,” writes B. Whorf. - We single out certain categories and types in the world of phenomena not at all because they (these categories and types) are self-evident; on the contrary, the world appears before us as a kaleidoscopic stream of impressions, which must be organized by our consciousness, and this means mainly by the language system stored in our consciousness. We dismember the world, organize it into concepts, and distribute meanings in this way and not otherwise, mainly because we are parties to an agreement that prescribes such a systematization. This agreement is valid for a certain language community and is fixed in the system of models of our language”;

human knowledge does not have an objective, universally valid character. “We are thus confronted with a new principle of relativity,” he writes, “which states that similar physical phenomena make it possible to create a similar picture of the universe only if the language systems are similar, or at least correlative.” Therefore, this principle is formulated as the principle of linguistic relativity, by analogy with the physical theory of relativity.

The hypothesis of E. Sapir - B. Whorf, thus, denies the universal nature of thinking, i.e. the presence of a common logical structure of thinking for all people. In addition, it makes the segmentation or dismemberment of the world in the process of abstract cognition completely dependent on language, which is generally unjustified, since the dismemberment of reality is carried out at the level of sensory cognition, not only by people, but also by animals that do not have a language.

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity by E. Sapir - B. Whorf in its main provisions also resonates with representatives of European neo-Humboldtianism (L. Weisgerber, G. Goltz, G. Ipsen, II. Hartmann, etc.). In accordance with their views, language is seen as a kind of intermediate world between objective reality and thinking. Moreover, the nature of the language determines the type of thinking, so the thinking of each nation has its own national features and its development is entirely determined by the evolution of the national language.

For L. Weisgerber, language is “primary reality”, and a person actually cognizes not objective reality that exists outside and independently of him, but the language that he is the bearer of. Neither sensory nor rational knowledge of the world by a person gives, in his opinion, objective knowledge about the world, since a person is "captive" to the language. Therefore, each nation has its own specific "picture of the world", the nature of which is determined by the language of which it is a native speaker. As an illustration, he gives the following example: in German there is a word Unkraut in the meaning of ‘weed, weed grass’, however, in the real scientific classification of plants there is no such species, but there is Hahnefuss'buttercup', Gansedistel‘thistle’, i.e. it is not a fact of reality, but the result of the interpretation of this reality by a person.

Another solution to the question of the relationship between language ~ thinking ~ culture is associated with the recognition of the independence of language and thinking, since the content side of linguistic units and grammatical categories has an extralogical character. In contrast to the principle of linguistic relativity of E. Sapir - B. Whorf, the principle of linguistic complementarity (G. A. Brutyan) is put forward, which is formulated as follows: “In the process of cognition, in connection with the active role of language and due to its specific features, a linguistic picture of the world arises. On the whole and in the main, it coincides with the logical reflection in the minds of people. But at the same time, peripheral sections are preserved in the linguistic picture of the world, which remain outside the logical reflection, and as verbal images of things and linguistic models, the relationship between them varies from language to language, depending on the specific features of the latter. Through verbal images and language models, an additional vision of the world occurs; these models act as a side source of knowledge, understanding of reality and complement our overall picture of knowledge, correct it. The verbal image is combined with the conceptual image, the linguistic modeling of the world with the logical one, creating the prerequisites for reproducing a more complete and comprehensive picture of the surrounding reality in the minds of people.

There are also contradictions in this hypothesis, the main of which boils down to the following: if the linguistic picture of the world has an extra-logical character, then the question arises of how it can “basically coincide” with the picture of the world that a person receives as a result of logical knowledge of the world;

the question also remains unclear whether the language is used in the process of logical reflection of reality and, if used, how it can be carried out if "the content side of linguistic units and grammatical categories is of an extralogical nature."

From this understanding of the relationship between language and thinking, it is concluded that language determines not only the nature of thinking, human cognitive activity, but also the type, norms of culture and, ultimately, the structure and development of human society itself.

It was this point of view that was consistently developed in the works of L. Weisgerber, who believed that the structure of society and its history are completely determined by the language and history of its development. A controversial solution to this issue is also contained in the works of B. Whorf. On the one hand, he writes about the rather rigid dependence of culture on language: “What was primary - the norm of the language or the norm of culture? Basically, they developed together, constantly influencing each other. But in this community, the nature of language is the factor that limits its freedom and flexibility and directs its development along a strictly defined path. This is because language is a system and not just a set of norms. The structure of a large system lends itself to significant change very slowly, while in many other areas of culture changes occur relatively quickly. Language thus reflects mass thinking; he reacts to all changes and innovations, but reacts weakly and slowly, while in the minds of those who make changes this happens instantly. On the other hand, he speaks of the existence between language and culture of only a certain kind of relationship. “Between cultural norms and language patterns,” he writes, “there are connections, but not correlations or direct correspondences. In some cases, "manners of speech" are an integral part of the whole culture, although this cannot be considered a general law, and there are connections between the linguistic categories used, their reflection in the behavior of people and the various forms that the development of culture takes.

There is, however, a more moderate point of view (V. 3. Panfilov), according to which language is not passive, but active in relation to consciousness, however, this activity is not so great that language can “organize” consciousness, determine its type, structure , "sculpt" in it your model of the world. Just as the human race is physically one, so is the consciousness of all people, and the various languages ​​of the world can only be considered as variants of the single language of the human race.

As for the question of the correlation of language, thinking and culture, then, in accordance with this concept, all three categories, being social phenomena, are interconnected. However, “language, while exerting some, but by no means decisive influence on thinking, cannot also fundamentally determine the nature of the material and spiritual culture of society, which is mediated by human thinking, which, like language, is a product of social development” .

Thus, modern science "rejects both extreme solutions - that the language entirely determines the worldview, and that the worldview of people does not depend on the language." Representatives of neo-Humboldtianism are right in that language is able to influence our thinking and perception of reality. However, this effect is not decisive. If this influence were rigidly determining, then the development of thinking and, accordingly, the development of knowledge would be impossible.

In this regard, the hypothesis of linguistic relativity by E. Sapir - B. Whorf requires clarification: in its absolutization of the assertion that thinking and the picture of the world created in a particular culture entirely depend on the language, it is apparently incorrect. But in a more relaxed way, in recognition of the fact that language influences our thinking and our ideas about the world, it can be acceptable. At the same time, it must be remembered that “the content of our thoughts and ideas is determined by their subject, and not by language. If this were not so, then we would misperceive the conditions in which we live and could not survive in them. We are able to navigate and exist in the objective world only insofar as life experience constantly forces us to correct the errors of our perception and thinking when they conflict with it. We are able to develop scientific knowledge about the world only insofar as their truth is tested by practice, and not by whether they correspond to the norms of the language. So, for example, in addition to the very meaning of the word water, any person knows that this is a liquid necessary for drinking and, in general, for life, that one can cook food, wash, wash, swim in it, but when swimming, one can choke and drown in it, etc.

This knowledge about the objects and realities of the external world comes from practice, from the experience of “hands and eyes”. This is the so-called stock of visual-experimental knowledge, which is formed already in childhood. Thanks to him, it becomes possible to communicate with multilingual people, for example, Basque, baso"forest, mountain" and Russian. forest and mountain are different, but the visual-experimental knowledge of the forest and mountains behind these different concepts is basically the same, and this knowledge will not give reason to think that under the wind it can make noise and sway baso mountain, not baso"forest" .

This is the universality of human thinking. "It is provided by a single logical and conceptual basis of thinking, which has a supralinguistic character" . Thanks to this base, mutual translatability of languages ​​is achieved. Language only in a certain way organizes a person's knowledge about the world around him. In this, its function of reflecting reality is manifested.

All these theoretical differences and contradictions in the views of even one and the same scientist indicate that the question of the relationship between language, thinking and culture is extremely complex.

There is no doubt that a person stands between language and the real world - a native speaker of language and culture, who perceives and classifies the world in his own way (therefore, where a Russian person sees two colors - blue and blue, an Englishman sees only one - blue, although they both look at the same part of the color spectrum).

It is also indisputable that the core of the semantic structure of the language is a single logical and conceptual basis of thinking, which is universal and does not depend on national languages ​​and cultures. Its universality is generated by the unity of the human psyche and its ability, regardless of lifestyle, to reflect the world in similar categories.

So, for example, in all languages, speakers distinguish between the subject of an action and its object, an object and a sign, spatial and temporal relationships, positive and negative emotional-expressive evaluation, etc. “The commonality of human psychology, reflected in the language, is also manifested in the asymmetry of positive and negative assessments. The vocabulary of a negative assessment is more diverse and richer than the vocabulary of a positive assessment. So, for example, the class of Russian verbs of speech expressing approval includes only a few verbs of neutral evaluation (praise, approve), the meaning of other verbs containing the general idea of ​​‘praise’ includes an additional sign of a negative assessment of the speech actions of a person ( praise, extol, glorify, flatter etc.). At the same time, the group of verbs with the antonymic meaning of ‘disapproval’ contains more than 80 lexical units (blame, blame, condemn, insult, denounce, ridicule, stigmatize, criticize etc.). Another indicator of the asymmetry of the language in the expression of evaluation is the fact that words that occupy the middle position on the evaluation scale tend to move towards the pole in a variety of languages. il ruioxo’ Medium abilities, for example, these are rather not the normal abilities of an ordinary person, but abilities that do not reach a certain level ... It is also noteworthy that words with the meaning of 'good' are often used in the meaning of 'normal', which is especially evident in etiquette formulas: How did you fly? - Good» .

The presence of this general universal basis of thinking makes it possible to translate from one language into another and understand each other by speakers of different languages ​​and different cultures. However, the detailing and concretization of this universal conceptual framework, the overgrowth of its words with their own meanings in each language occurs in its own way.

Differences between languages ​​in vocabulary are especially noticeable: in any language there is a so-called non-equivalent vocabulary, i.e. words that do not translate into other languages ​​in one word. However, its share in the language, as a rule, is not large (in Russian, for example, it is no more than 6-7%, compare words such as matryoshka, samovar, accordion, subbotnik, jinx etc.).

English, German and French each have two words for arms and two words for legs, whereas in Russian, one word at a time, cf.:

english, hand/atm english, foot/leg German hand/arm German .fuss/hein French main/bras French pied/jambe Russian hand Russian leg

Therefore, neither a German, nor an Englishman, nor a Frenchman can say: "I hurt my hand." They must indicate which part of the hand they injured. But when it comes to eyes, then in Russian you can’t say “a speck of dust got into my eyes”: the word “eyes” in the plural means both eyes, and a speck of dust cannot get into two eyes at once. The Irish say exactly that - in the plural. Because for them both eyes are one object, which is denoted by a single number (as "the organ of vision"). To name one eye, they say: "half of the organ of vision."

The absence of corresponding words in the language is called lacunae. Gaps become noticeable only when comparing languages. The existence of gaps in languages ​​is associated with differences in cultures, with the so-called asymmetry of worldviews presented in different linguistic pictures of the world: sometimes they appear due to the absence of certain realities (cf. Rus. cabbage soup, felt boots or matryoshka), sometimes they are caused by the fact that in one culture the difference between certain objects of the external world is recognized as more important than in another (for example, two English words "shore"(seashore) and "bank"(bank of the river) corresponds to one Russian - "shore").

This is where the principle of selectivity of the nominative act comes into play. This selectivity, on the one hand, is associated with the difference in natural and socio-economic conditions in which native speakers of the respective languages ​​live, and, on the other hand, with elements of pragmatism, since “consciousness does not simply duplicate the reflected reality using symbolic means, but highlights significant for the subject signs and properties, constructs them into ideal generalized models of reality”, i.e. the objective world is divided by man in terms of categories of value. The selectivity of the nomination process reveals the originality of a person's perception and assessment of the world around him, because the very choice of a particular phenomenon of reality as an object of nomination testifies to its significance for native speakers. "Attributing to objects and phenomena of the surrounding world certain properties objectively inherent in them, a person demonstrates his indifference to these properties."

The very process of their meaning» with the help of linguistic means involves the measurement of their significance for a native speaker.

The principle of selectivity of the nominative act is subject to the main regulative principle of culture. This principle permeates the entire lexical system of the language, influencing not only the perception of objects and phenomena of the external world, but also their interpretation. It is he who gives meaning and significance to each linguistic act, unites lexico-semantic and thematic groups of vocabulary into one single whole, allowing us to understand the logical basis for their allocation in the language of culture.

In Old Church Slavonic, for example, God was such a regulative principle. It was this regulative principle of the Middle Ages that predetermined the entire logical structure of its culture, influencing the structure of such a basic concept of the Old Slavonic language as “man”. Everything that exists in the Middle Ages goes back to this regulative principle, is included in a harmonious hierarchy and is in a harmonious relationship with other elements of the cosmos. Therefore, the world and all its parts received a moral coloring in the Old Slavonic language. That is why, when characterizing the spiritual and social medieval man, an extremely important place is occupied by axiologically colored attributions of a person in his relation to God (cf., for example, the following words: kogovidt 'seeing God'; god in oneself'; kogoprik.yts 'holding God in his arms'; kogosvlrnik 'god-fighter'; kogosvlrnik 'god-fighter'; kogocht' 'pious, pious man'; christoports 'opponent of Christ' kogozhdrostn' 'wise as God'; zlochstn' 'godless man'; dishonorable, depraved'; Houdn' 'blasphemous', etc.). In modern Russian, this principle no longer works, so there are no such names.

Skorovarova Lyubov Pavlovna, Senior Lecturer

The purpose of the course is to introduce the student to the world of Russian language culture, to show the ways and means of overcoming the communicative difficulties that are typical, as a rule, for students of technical universities, and most importantly, to awaken the desire to improve in the art of mastering the word in various situations. The course is aimed at developing students' abilities to competently, adequately and accurately use the modern Russian literary language in oral and written speech. Considerable time is devoted to practical exercises, in which individual students will reveal deviations from the norm of the literary language in the field of spelling, grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, a necessary component of the classes will be individual work with such students.
The brightest countries of Russian fiction are used as educational material in the classroom, as well as samples of scientific, popular science and journalistic literature on topics close to MIPT students, including tape recordings of speeches and lectures by professors of the Physicotechnical Institute.

Topic 1. INTRODUCTION

Brief historical review of the formation of the Russian literary language during the millennium (X-XX centuries). Creation of the Old Slavonic language by Cyril and Methodius. Old Slavonic and Old Russian languages. The role of the Novgorod excavations under the guidance of Academician Yanin V.L. in the second half of the twentieth century. in the assessment of Old Russian language culture. Chronicle language. The role of monasteries Language reform M.V. Lomonosov. Formation of the Russian literary language in the 19th century. Language A.S. Pushkin and his influence on Russian language culture.
Complex processes in the Russian language culture of the XX century. as a reflection of the cataclysms of Russian history. Scientific and technological revolution: the influence of electronic media and the Internet. Meaning of reference dictionaries. Characteristics of different types of dictionaries. Explanatory, spelling, encyclopedic dictionaries, dictionaries of synonyms, etc.
Modern Russian language in the system of world languages. Russian language in the post-Soviet space after the collapse of the USSR. State policy in the field of language: the loss of the national national language is a direct threat to the preservation of the nation and the state. The problem of rupture of linguistic communication between national communities, between different age groups of the population.
Federal target program "Russian language 2002-2005", extended until 2010.

Topic 2. CULTURE OF SPEECH

Conversation rules. Issues of etiquette and ethics in speech: speaking and listening. Psychological variants of speech behavior. Conditions for the influence of the living word. Word abuse. Causes of communication failures. Compliance with moral standards in various situations of communication (for example, in a situation of an order, request, refusal, etc.). The art of dialogue and polylogue. Rhetorical figures in colloquial speech. Ways of emotional impact on the interlocutor, the aesthetics of colloquial speech. Telephone ethics. The problem of profanity in modern Russian colloquial language.

Topic 3. CULTURE OF ORATORIC SPEECH (oral and written)

The stylistic difference between oral and written oratory.
Types of oratory:
1. Political eloquence: reports at congresses, conferences, rallies, parliamentary speeches, various types of public speaking in the media on socio-political topics. A variety of expressive means of influencing the audience to achieve the effect desired by the speaker. Outstanding speeches by politicians in the pre-revolutionary State Duma (P.A. Stolypin, V.M. Purishkevich, S.Yu. Witte, N.A. Maklakov, P.B. Struve, etc.). Revolutionary speakers - M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin, V.I. Lenin, G.V. Plekhanov, L.D. Trotsky, I.V. Stalin, A.V. Lunacharsky and others.
Speeches of modern politicians - M.S. Gorbachev, V.S. Chernomyrdin, B.N. Yeltsin, V.V. Zhirinovsky and others. Samples of oratory in public speeches by D.S. Likhachev (1989) and A.I. Solzhenitsyn (1994).
2. Academic eloquence. Its types: university lecture, scientific report, message, speeches at seminars, conferences, etc., popular science journalism. Features of each of these types of public speaking. Individual methods of lecturer's skill. Outstanding lecturers of the Phystech.
3. Judicial eloquence. Speeches of talented Russian lawyers - A.F. Koni, N.P. Karabchevsky, F.N. Plevako and others.
4. Spiritual eloquence. The science of Christian church preaching, which has a rich and deep tradition. "Sermon on Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century), sermons by Simeon of Polotsk (XVII century), Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (XIX century), books by Father Alexander Men (XX century), etc.
5. Household eloquence. His diverse forms, traditions and individual skill as a speaker. Anniversary speeches, addresses, greetings, speeches at banquets, academic receptions, friendly feasts, etc.
Techniques of a well-prepared "improvisation" of everyday eloquence.

Topic 4. CULTURE OF DISCUTIVE-POLEMIC SPEECH

Dispute, controversy, discussion, dispute, debate - the semantic differences between these concepts. The popularity of discutive-polemical forms in modern media.
There are two main types of disputes:
1. "Dispute" as a means of joint efforts to find a solution to a problem, problem (scientific discussions, disputes);
2. "Dispute" as a means of psychological influence on the enemy (most political disputes).
Problems of etiquette and ethics in a dispute situation. The use of evaluative language means in a dispute situation.

Topic 5. CULTURE OF BUSINESS SPEECH

Features and norms of official business style. genres of documentation. Compositional features of service documents. Documentation culture: ways of presenting material, proportionality of parts, the importance of precise wording in a business document, clarity and conciseness of style. Business etiquette: personal and written appeals. Choosing the genre of a business document: application, letter, memo, memorandum, explanatory note, power of attorney, etc.
Oral business speech, business telephone conversation.

Topic 6. MODERN MASS MEDIA AND CULTURE OF SPEECH

Information field. Varieties and functions of mass media. Means of speech expressiveness. Tendency towards expression and standardization. Stamps, clichés, allusions, etc.
Stylistics of periodical press genres: essay, essay, interview, portrait, reportage, etc. The influence of mass media on the linguistic culture of the population.

SEMINAR TOPICS:

1. Genres and ethics of speech communication.
2. Style and genre features of the scientific style.
3. Text forms of business style.
4. Means of speech expressiveness in various genres.

SUMMARY TOPICS:

Based on the materials of Fiztekhov life, write (optional):
- feature article
- story
- reporting
- feuilleton
- story
- interview
- review

LITERATURE

1. The culture of Russian speech. Textbook for high schools. - M., Nauka, 2006.
2. Rosenthal D.E. A large reference book on the Russian language. Spelling. Punctuation. Orthographic dictionary. Uppercase or lowercase? - M., Onyx, 2006.
3. Rosenthal D.E., Dzhadzhakova E.V., Kabanova N.P. A guide to spelling, pronunciation, literary editing. - M., 1994.
4. Chukovsky K.I. Live like life. About the Russian language. Any edition.
5. Everything simple is true ... Aphorisms and reflections of Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa. - M., MIPT publishing house, 1994.
6. I am Phystech. - M., 1996.
7. For scientific humor. - M., 2000.