N. A. Rastegaeva
LANGUAGE CULTURE: CONCEPT AND ASPECTS OF CONTENT
Language culture is considered as a kind of culture included in its system. The author makes a distinction between the concepts of "language culture", "speech culture", "speech culture", gives his own interpretation of the concept of language culture and describes its components.
Keywords: culture, language, culture morphology, language culture, components of language culture
The article is dedicated to the language culture as a kind of culture and a part of the general system of culture. The author differentiates concepts of language culture, speech culture and culture of speech, suggests her own definition of language culture and describes its components.
Keywords: culture, language, morphology of culture, language culture, components of language culture
Understanding culture as a system, according to M. S. Kagan, stems from its origin. “Both phylogenesis and ontogeny ... indicate that culture is a holistically comprehensive way of “humanizing a person” - the human race and each of its representatives - in the process of acquiring qualities that are unknown to nature and are generated by the transformation of a biological form of being into a sociocultural one. » . With such an interpretation of culture, there is no doubt that language (hereinafter, language is understood as a natural language as a unity of a sign system and its speech realization) is an element of a cultural system that forms a specific language subsystem of culture.
Researchers of the morphology of culture consider its various types and branches, among the criteria for their selection, naming spheres of social life, activities, forms of social consciousness, etc. The term culture is used in this case “to designate cultural spheres and components, so we can talk about culture work, life, behavior, about artistic, musical, moral, legal, political cultures. The problem of the morphology of culture has been developed in detail (although not completely resolved) in the philosophical and cultural literature, but undeservedly little attention has been paid to the culture of the language. The place occupied by language in the life of a person and society allows us to speak of linguistic culture as one of the most important types of culture. It is important to note that although linguistic culture is included in the general system of culture, it occupies a special niche in it in comparison with other components. This is explained by the fact that we are talking about a phenomenon whose functional load can only be compared with culture as a whole. Being the basis of sociality and culture, language penetrates into all spheres of human life and society so deeply that it becomes impossible to imagine them outside the language. "The actual unity of language and culture, expressed by the fact that language permeates all its other phenomena",
allows us to speak of linguistic culture as a type of culture, represented to one degree or another in all other cultural spheres.
The study of language culture must begin with the differentiation of the concepts of culture of speech, speech culture, language culture.
The terms speech culture and culture of speech are widely used in scientific and educational literature. Sometimes they are interpreted as synonymous, but the tendency to distinguish between these concepts is becoming more and more widespread, an example of which can be the corresponding articles in the encyclopedia of the Russian language edited by Yu. N. Karaulov. In its second edition, the term culture of speech is defined as "possession of the norms of the literary language in its oral and written form, in which the choice and organization of language means are carried out, which allow, in a certain situation of communication and while observing the ethics of communication, to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the goals of communication" . Speech culture is understood much broader: “an integral part of the culture of the people associated with the use of the language” [Ibid., p. 413-414]. The author of the encyclopedic article on speech culture cited above, O. B. Sirotinin, in a later edition emphasizes that “the concept of speech culture is wider than the concept of speech culture, which includes only the nature of the use of the language, the attitude towards it, but not the language itself and is enshrined in him a picture of the world.
In domestic science, there is an opinion that the terms culture of speech and culture of language are synonymous, however, the approach in which these concepts are distinguished is more widespread. In the large encyclopedic dictionary "Linguistics" edited by V. N. Yartseva, this difference is formulated as follows: the concept of language culture is used "when we mean the properties of exemplary texts enshrined in written monuments, as well as the expressive and semantic capabilities of the language system"; the culture of speech is understood as “con-
concrete realization of linguistic properties and possibilities in the conditions of everyday and mass - oral and written - communication ". An important difference between the culture of language and the culture of speech is considered to be the fact that “educational problems are more complex and multidimensional” .
In foreign linguistics, as E. O. Oparina notes in the review “Linguistic culture as a subject of public interest”, these terms were first used as synonyms, and then the concept of language culture absorbed the concept of speech culture. The same review mentions that “the formation of a communicative-pragmatic paradigm in linguistics in the 70s led to the fact that the culture of the language began to be interpreted as an integral part of culture in general and, therefore, should not have been limited to pedantic correction of individual grammatical, stylistic and semantic errors. , i.e., be reduced to normativism. E. O. Oparina uses the term language culture as “denoting a wide range of phenomena related both to the language system and its functioning in speech, as well as to socio-culturally motivated characteristics of speech behavior” [Ibid., p. 89].
The content of the concept of language culture in this article is very close to the ideas about the speech culture of O. B. Sirotinina and the understanding of the language culture of E. O. Oparina. We will interpret linguistic culture as a type of culture that occupies a special place in its system, which determines and regulates the existence of a person in a linguistic environment. The content of linguistic culture, in our opinion, consists of the following components: linguistic (linguistic), institutional, cognitive,
axiological, aesthetic and need-motivational.
1. The linguistic aspect includes the language itself and the whole variety of texts representing it.
2. The institutional aspect is found in the functioning of various social and cultural institutions that have as an object of their activity the language or linguistic culture of its speakers (sciences about language, the system for transferring knowledge about it, language policy - as an implementation of the institution of state power, the media, etc.) .
3. Cognitive aspect - language knowledge; speech skills; language learning experience. The composition of language knowledge will include knowledge of phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, orthoepy, spelling, punctuation, style, speech etiquette. Distinguish between language proficiency and language proficiency. The second implies not just knowledge of the rules of a certain language, but the ability to mobilize this knowledge in the performance of certain communicative tasks. In other words, language proficiency means having not only
linguistic knowledge, but also speech skills. Speech skill is understood as the ability to "correctly choose the style of speech, subordinate the form of speech utterance to the tasks of communication, use the most effective language means." Speech skills are creative in nature, since the circumstances and tasks of communication are never completely repeated, and a person has to re-select the necessary language means each time.
4. Axiological aspect - a conscious attitude to language as a universal and personal value; evaluation of speech quality. Language is a value, being a phenomenon that has a positive significance both for society and for the individual: a translator of cultural heritage, a link in the dialogue of cultures, a cognitive, aesthetic, practically transforming value. The value attitude to the language is characterized by the internal acceptance of the language as a value, the awareness of the constant need for it. Awareness of the universal significance of this phenomenon is characteristic, as a rule, of people with a high level of linguistic culture, as it is based on an understanding of its role in the life of society and man. The personal value of the language is realized by a much wider circle of people due to the need for a high level of proficiency in native and foreign languages in order to achieve success in many areas of life. So, for example, at the present stage of social development in the context of global integration of cultures, knowledge of a foreign language becomes a condition for successful professional activity.
5. The aesthetic aspect is based on the sensory-figurative assimilation of reality through language and includes two components: artistic realization and perception of the language; aesthetic non-artistic perception and reproduction of language. In the first case, we are talking about the result of the activity of the artist of the word, in the second - about the universal, everyday aesthetic attitude to the language or its individual components. For the aesthetic aspect of linguistic culture, experience is primary, and not the adequacy of understanding.
6. The need-motivational aspect is realized in the awareness of the need to develop the language culture and the culture of speech; in interest in learning a language, including a foreign one; in the pursuit of beautiful harmonious speech. This aspect of linguistic culture combines all the variety of factors that can encourage a person to learn the language, improve their speech.
Thus, linguistic culture can be understood as a kind of culture that determines and regulates the existence of a person in a linguistic environment, thereby mediating the interaction of a person and language.
In the course of historical development, each nation has developed its own linguistic culture, and what is characteristic of a given branch of culture of one nation turns out to be completely uncharacteristic of another.
go. Of course, we can also talk about the universal components of language culture: for example, it necessarily contains ideas about the correctness of speech, a system for transferring knowledge about the language, speech etiquette, etc. Like culture as a whole, language culture manifests itself on various scales (universal, national, social or personal), each of which has certain specific properties.
1. Golovin, B. N. Fundamentals of the culture of speech: textbook. for universities / B. N. Golovin. - 2nd ed. - M.: Higher. school, 1988. - 319 p.
2. Grigoriev, V. P. Language culture and language policy / V. P. Grigoriev // Society. science and modernity. - 2003. - No. 1. - S. 143-157.
3. Zhilyaeva, O. A. Language culture as a factor in the success of professional activity / O. A. Zhilyaeva // Izv. Ros. state ped. un-ta im. A. I. Herzen. - 2009. - No. 93. - S. 245-249.
4. Kagan, M. S. Introduction to the history of world culture: in 2 books. Book. 1. / M. S. Kagan. - 2nd ed. - St. Petersburg: Petropolis, 2003. -383 p.
5. Culturology: textbook. / ed. Yu. N. Solonin, M. S. Kagan. - M.: Higher. education, 2008. - 566 p.
6. Leontiev, A. A. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics: textbook. for universities / A. A. Leontiev. - M.: Meaning, 1997. - 287 p.
7. Oparina, E. O. Language culture as a subject of public interest / E. O. Oparina // Language and Culture: Sat. reviews. - M.: INION, 1999. - S. 88-108.
8. Russian language: encyclopedia. 2nd ed., revised. and additional / Ch. ed. Yu. N. Karaulov. - M.: Bolshaya grew up. Encycl.: Bustard, 1997. -
9. Sirotinina, O. B. Speech culture / O. B. Sirotinina // Russian language: encyclopedia. / Ch. ed. Yu. N. Karaulov. - 3rd ed. -
Moscow: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl.: Drofa, 2003. - S. 343-347.
10. Linguistics: a large encyclopedia. words. / Ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. - 2nd ed. - M.: Bolshaya Ros. Encycl., 1998. - 685 p. - (Large encyclopedic dictionaries).
11. Yachin, S. E. Language as a basis and universal model of culture / S. E. Yachin // State, religion, Church in Russia and abroad. - 2010. - No. 1. - S. 14-31.
1.1. Life requires us to speak correctly, clearly, expressively. Knowledge of the native language, the ability to communicate, to conduct a harmonious dialogue are important components of professional skills in various fields of activity. In whatever field a specialist with a higher education works, he must be an intelligent person, freely navigating in a rapidly changing information space. The culture of speech is not only an indispensable component of well-trained business people, but also an indicator of the culture of thinking, as well as the general culture. The well-known linguist T. G. Vinokur very accurately defined speech behavior as “a visiting card of a person in society”, therefore an important and urgent task of a student receiving a higher education is to fully master the riches and norms of his native language.
In recent years, the question of the ecology of language, which is directly related to human consciousness, has been increasingly raised. "Pollution of the language environment", which occurs with the active participation of the media, cannot but have a detrimental effect on the speech culture of a native speaker. Here it is appropriate to recall the words of S. M. Volkonsky, who wrote back in the 1920s: “The sense of language (if I may say so, the sense of purity of language) is a very subtle feeling, it is difficult to develop and very easy to lose. The slightest shift in the direction of slovenliness and irregularity is enough for this slovenliness to become a habit, and, as a bad habit, as such it will flourish. For it is in the nature of things that good habits require practice, while bad habits develop themselves. Volkonsky S. M. About the Russian language // Russian speech. 1992. No. 2). At the same time, thousands of schoolchildren and students are asking themselves the question: why do I need to speak and write correctly in Russian? I understand, they understand me - what else? .. If we devoutly guarded the language since the time of Yuri Dolgoruky, then now we would speak Old Russian. If A.S. Pushkin had been kind to the language of Antioch Kantemir and M.V. Lomonosov, then we would still use the words “very, because, velmi”. The language develops, and you cannot artificially restrain it. But does this mean that we can speak as we please, thereby developing the language? Does this mean that our lack of understanding of grammar and violation of its norms enrich our speech? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to understand how the concepts are related language and speech .
1.2.Language – This system of signs and ways of their connection, which serves as an instrument for expressing thoughts, feelings and wills of people and is the most important means of human communication. Like any sign system, a language has two mandatory components: a set of characters and the rules for using these signs, i.e. grammar (if we are offered to study the French dictionary, we will not be able to communicate, even having learned the entire thesaurus - you need to know the rules for combining words into sentences ).
Along with natural languages that have arisen in the process of human communication, there are artificial sign systems- traffic signs, mathematical, musical signs, etc., which can transmit only types of messages limited in their content, related to the subject area for which they are created. Natural human language capable of transmitting messages of any, unrestricted types of content. This property of human language can be called its universality.
Language performs three main functions - it is a means of communication (communicative function), messages (informative) and influence (pragmatic). In addition, language is not only the most important means of communication between people, but also a means of cognition that allows people to accumulate knowledge, passing it on from person to person and from each generation of people to the next generations. The totality of the achievements of human society in industrial, social and spiritual activities is called culture. Therefore, we can say that language is a means of developing culture and a means of assimilation of culture by each member of society.
If a language- this is a system of units accepted in a given society that serve to transmit information and interpersonal communication, i.e., a kind of the code used for communication, then speech – implementation of this system. On the one hand, the implementation of the language system is speech activity, the process of creating and perceiving a speech message (the study of speech as an activity is the subject of a special science - psycholinguistics). On the other hand, speech is sales product system of language, which in linguistics is denoted by the term text(let us clarify that not only a written work is called a text: in this case, following M. M. Bakhtin, we will understand by text any statement- written or oral - regardless of the volume of the speech work).
The Russian language has been created for centuries, it is fixed in writing in the works of the best masters of the word, in dictionaries and grammars, and therefore will exist forever. The language does not care who speaks it and how. Our native language has already taken shape, hundreds of millions of books have been written in it, and we will not spoil it in any way, even if we really want to. We will only spoil ... our speech.
A culture of speech is such a choice and such an organization of language means that, in a situation of communication, while observing modern language norms and ethics of communication, can provide the greatest effect in achieving the set goals. communicative tasks. The culture of speech is a biased view of language, a traditional view of the “good and bad” in communication. Consider the concept of speech culture in three aspects.
1) The culture of speech is the possession of the norms of oral and written literary language and the ability to correctly, accurately, expressively convey one's thoughts by means of language.
2) The culture of speech as a science is a branch of philology that studies the speech of society in a certain era, depending on the social, psychological, ethical circumstances of communication; on a scientific basis establishes the rules for the use of language as the main means of communication, an instrument for the formation and expression of thought. The subject of speech culture is a language immersed in society.
3) The culture of speech is a characteristic that reflects the totality of knowledge and skills of an individual and the degree of language proficiency; it is a criterion for evaluating the general culture of a person.
2. Russian language and its variants
2.1. Each of us owns at least one of living natural ethnic languages: alive - used in everyday communication by a certain group of people at the present time; ethnic – national (language of a certain group); natural - created in the process of communication and changing spontaneously, and not in an act of conscious creation, invention or discovery; belongs to all speakers, and to no one in particular. Each natural language develops such an internal organization that it ensures its stability and systemic (integrity) response to changes in the environment in which it functions.
Artificial languages (Esperanto - the language of science, Ido, Occidental, etc.) are languages created specifically to overcome the barrier of multilingualism in interethnic communication. These are the languages for general use. Specialized artificial languages of sciences are being created (symbolic languages of logic, mathematics, chemistry, etc.; a special place is occupied by algorithmic languages of human-machine communication - BASIC, Pascal, Fortran, C etc.): they have their own character sets for conveying specific concepts and their own grammars (which describe ways of organizing formula statements and entire texts). When constructing an artificial language, it is necessary to specify the alphabet (conventional signs) and syntax, i.e., to formulate the rules for the compatibility of conventional signs.
Artificial languages play a supporting role in human communication, but this role cannot be played by any other non-specialized means.
Modern Russian is a natural ethnic language that has its own complex history. Genetically (by origin) it is part of the huge Indo-European family of languages. He is related to the languages of the Indian group (Sanskrit, Hindi, Gypsy, etc.), Iranian (Persian, Tajik, Ossetian, Kurdish, etc.), Germanic (Gothic, German, English, etc.), Romance (Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.) groups, as well as Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Albanian, Armenian, etc. It is included in the Slavic group of the Indo-European family (together with some obsolete and living Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian and Belarusian and Ukrainian languages closest to the Russian language).
Recently, some poorly educated politicians have been raising the question of the primacy of the language: which language is older - Ukrainian or Russian, if the ancient state was called Kievan Rus? The history of the development of the language indicates that the very formulation of this issue is unlawful: the division of the single Old Russian language into Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian occurred at the same time - in the XIV-XVI centuries, therefore, none of the languages \u200b\u200bcan be "older" . As a result, an East Slavic subgroup of the Slavic group of Indo-European languages arose. These languages inherited their writing based on the Cyrillic alphabet from Ancient Russia. The Russian literary language was formed as a result of the interaction of the Russified version of the ancient Slavic literary language (Church Slavonic) and the literary language that developed from the living Russian folk speech. Today, literary Russian has both written and oral forms, it has an extensive system of styles and influences Russian vernacular and folk dialects (dialects), which are still used by a significant part of Russian speakers.
Russian is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. It is used by the peoples of Russia and neighboring countries in interethnic communication. Recently, there has been a trend towards the revival of national languages and their recognition as state languages. However, the Russian language remains (should remain, since half of the population of modern independent states, former republics is Russian-speaking) the second mandatory state language, that is, it serves the most important social institutions of the state - it is the language of law, first of all, science, higher education (as in the old an anecdote about a meeting in the Duma: Muscovites e? - Nope? - Well, then you can speak Russian). The Russian language is accepted by major international organizations: it is one of the six official languages of the UN.
2.2.Literary Russian language began to take shape many centuries ago. There are disputes in science about its basis, about the role of the Church Slavonic language in its formation. However, these disputes are important only for philologists; for non-philological students, the only thing that matters is that the literary language has a centuries-old history and its own traditions. It absorbed borrowings from many languages: ancient Greek - notebook, lantern, presumably ancient German - bread, German - closet, French - driver, squander, almost all words with an initial a, words containing the letter f. Parallel use of the original Russian and Old Slavonic in origin form of the word (side and country, middle and environment, the meanings of which diverged far; milk - mammals, health - health care - healthy (bowl), city - urban planning, where Russian vocalization is used in household, more specific concepts, and Old Slavonic - in higher, abstract ones) greatly expanded the stylistic possibilities of the literary Russian language. Modern forms of participles with suffixes are learned from Church Slavonic -usch-/-yushch-, -asch-/-yashch- (counting, screaming, lying; cf. them with Russian forms of participles -ach-/-cell- in stable expressions: do not hit the recumbent, a walking encyclopedia). Please note that actually Russian words have already formed from the borrowed stems: a notebook, a flashlight, a loaf, an arbuzikha, anarchic, etc.
Back in the eighteenth century. M. V. Lomonosov, who did a lot not only for the development of the natural sciences, but also for philology (he was the author of grammatical and rhetorical works, a poet), tried to regulate the use of higher Church Slavonic and lower proper Russian words and forms, creating the doctrine of three "calms" of speech: high, which should write odes and tragedies, medium, suitable for composing poetic and prose works, where "an ordinary human word is required", and low - for comedies, epigrams, songs, friendly letters.
A.S. Pushkin, who is called the creator of the modern Russian literary language, played a huge role in the development of the literary Russian language. Indeed, A. S. Pushkin streamlined the use of Church Slavonic words, ridding the Russian language of many that he no longer needed, in fact, resolved the dispute about the admissibility or inadmissibility of using borrowed words in the Russian language (let us recall, for example, “After all, pantaloons, tailcoat, vest, All there are no such words in Russian"), introduced many words and expressions from folk Russian speech into the literary language (for which he was often attacked by his contemporaries), formulated the fundamental differences between the "spoken language and the written language", emphasizing that knowing only one of them is still not know the language. The work of A. S. Pushkin is indeed a definite milestone in the history of the literary Russian language. We still read his creations easily and with pleasure, while the works of his predecessors and even many contemporaries - with some difficulty: it is felt that they wrote now in an outdated language.
Of course, since the time of A. S. Pushkin, the literary Russian language has also changed a lot; some of it left, and a lot of new words appeared. Therefore, recognizing A. S. Pushkin as the founder of the modern Russian literary language, nevertheless, when compiling new dictionaries of the modern Russian language, they count only from the second half of the 20th century. However, the role of A. S. Pushkin in the history of the literary Russian language can hardly be overestimated: he practically laid the foundations for the modern functional and stylistic differentiation of the language, creating not only artistic, but also historical, journalistic works in which the speech of the characters and the speech of the author were clearly distinguished.
Concepts should be distinguished: Russian national language and Russian literary language. The Russian national language has social and functional varieties, covering all areas of people's speech activity, regardless of upbringing, education, place of residence, profession, etc. The Russian national language exists in two main forms: literary and non-literary.
Literary language divided into book and colloquial; to non-literary language relate social jargon(including slang, slang), professional jargon, territorial dialects, vernacular.
2.3. Let us consider the selected forms of the national language in more detail.
Russian language and its variants
| Literary language | An exemplary version of the language used in television and radio, in periodicals, in science, in government agencies and educational institutions. It is a standardized, codified, supradialectal, prestigious language. It is the language of intellectual activity. There are five functional styles of the literary language: bookish - scientific, official business, journalistic and artistic; The literary version also includes the colloquial style, which makes special demands on the construction of spontaneous oral or subjective written speech, an integral feature of which is the effect of easy communication. |
| Dialects | A non-literary variant of a language used by people in certain areas in the countryside. Nevertheless, this variant forms an important lower stratum of the language, its historical base, the richest linguistic soil, the repository of national identity and creative potential of the language. Many prominent scientists speak in defense of dialects and urge their speakers not to forget their roots, and not to consider their native language unequivocally “wrong”, but to study, preserve, but at the same time, of course, to be fluent in the literary norm, the high literary version of the Russian language. Recently, a special concern of a number of highly civilized states has become the education of respect for the people's dialect speech and the desire to support it. A well-known lawyer, author of articles on judicial eloquence A.F. Koni (1844 - 1927) told a case when a judge threatened responsibility for a false oath to a witness who, when asked what the weather was like on the day of the theft, stubbornly answered: “There wasn’t any weather” . The word weather in the literary language means "the state of the atmosphere in a given place at a given time" and does not indicate the nature of the weather, whether it is good or bad. That is how the judges perceived this word. However, according to V. I. Dahl, in the southern and western dialects weather means “good, clear, dry time, a bucket”, and in the northern and eastern dialects it means “bad weather, rain, snow, storm”. Therefore, the witness, knowing only one of the dialectal meanings, stubbornly answered that "there was no weather." A.F. Koni, giving advice to justice officials on oratory, pointed out that they should know local words and expressions in order to avoid mistakes in their speech, to understand the speech of the local population and not create such situations. |
| Jargon | A non-literary variant of a language used in the speech of certain social groups for the purpose of linguistic isolation, often a variant of the speech of the poorly educated strata of the urban population and giving it an incorrect and rude character. Jargon is characterized by the presence of specific vocabulary and phraseology. Jargons: students, musicians, athletes, hunters, etc. As synonyms for the word jargon, the following words are used: slang - a designation of youth jargon - and slang, which denotes a conditional, secret language; historically, such a language that is incomprehensible to others is spoken mainly by representatives of the criminal world: earlier there was an argo of merchants, walkers, artisans (tinsmiths, tailors, saddlers, etc.) Ignorance of various forms of the national language, inability to switch to the form used by the interlocutor , creates speech discomfort, makes it difficult for speakers to understand each other. An interesting description of some conditional (artificial languages) can be found in V.I. Dahl: “The capital, especially St. Petersburg, swindlers, pickpockets and thieves of various trades, known under the names of mazuriks, invented their own language, however, very limited and relating exclusively to theft. There are words in common with the Offenian language: cool - good, crook - knife, lepen - handkerchief, shirman - pocket, propull - sell, but there are few of them, more of their own: Butyr - policeman, pharaoh - alarm clock, arrow - Cossack, eland - boar, reed warbler - scrap, boy - bit. This language, which they call flannelette, or simply music, all the merchants of Apraksin's court also speak, as one might suppose, according to their connections and according to the type of craft. Know the music know this language; walk on music engage in thieves' trade. Then V.I. Dal gives a conversation in such a "secret" language and gives its translation: - What did you steal? He cut down a bumblebee and nurtured it from a kurzhan pelvis. Strema, dropper. And you? - He stole a bench and blew it on freckles.- What did you steal? He pulled out a purse and a silver snuffbox. Choo, cop. And you? “I stole a horse and traded it for a watch.” Let's take a more modern example. D. Lukin in the article “What language do they speak?” writes: “I go to one of the numerous Moscow state ... Teachers, students are all so important ... One student (you can’t make out her face: only powder, lipstick and mascara) says to her friend: “I’m clean, I scored for the first pair. Fuck it all! He again drove a blizzard ... I approached and asked: is it possible in Russian? The girl, fortunately, was in a good mood, and I didn’t “fly off” a hundred meters, she didn’t “shave off” me, but after “shooting a bird” from a friend, she put a cigarette in her bag and answered: “Well, how can you speak normally?” living in an abnormal society?<...>I speak normally with my parents, otherwise they will dig in and won’t move in. (Lit. Gaz., 27.01.99). |
| vernacular | Vernacular is a non-literary version of the language used in casual communication between representatives of certain social groups. This form of language does not have its own signs of a systemic organization and is characterized by a set of linguistic forms that violate the norms of the literary language. Moreover, such a violation of the norm is not realized by the speakers of vernacular, they do not catch, they do not understand the difference between non-literary and literary forms (traditional question: What, didn't I say that?) In phonetics: * driver, * put, * sentence; *ridiculitis, *colidor, *rezetka, *drushlag. In morphology: * my callus, * with jam, * business, * on the beach, * driver, * without a coat, * run, * lie down, * lay down. Vocabulary: * pedestal, * semi-clinic. |
In conclusion, we emphasize that the literary version of the national Russian language is a normalized language processed by masters of the word. Live communication alone in the appropriate social environment is not enough for its complete assimilation, its special study and constant self-control over the literary nature of one's oral and written speech are necessary. But the reward for mastering the high style and all the functional variants of the native language will be high status, respect for a person with a high culture of communication, trust, freedom, self-confidence and personal charm.
List of used literature:
Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979.
Vvedenskaya L. A., Pavlova L. G., Kashaeva E. Yu. Russian language and culture of speech: Textbook for universities. Rostov n / D., 2001.
Russian language and culture of speech: Proc. for universities /A. I. Dunev, M. Ya. Dymarsky, A. Yu. Kozhevnikov and others; Ed. V. D. CHERNYAK SPb., 2002.
Sirotinina O. B., Goldin V. E., Kulikova G. S., Yagubova M. A. Russian language and culture of communication for non-philologists: Proc. manual for students of non-philological specialties of universities. Saratov, 1998.
Questions for self-control:
1. How do the concepts of language and speech relate?
2. Name the main functions of the language.
3. Describe the culture of speech in three aspects.
4. What is the national language?
5. What does the term modern Russian mean?
6. Which variants of the language are literary, which are non-literary?
1The article aims to consider the issues of speech culture in everyday life. The issues of violation of the basic principles of business ethics in public speaking and deviations from language norms are considered. In addition, conclusions were drawn regarding the features of official speech. The article talks about the stages of a speech, how to properly build a speech, how to prepare for a meeting with listeners, about audience management techniques. It gives explanations regarding the polite use of speech turns according to the norms of etiquette, provides ways to improve those of them that express a respectful attitude towards listeners.
a culture of speech
language norm
public speaking
business relationship
communication
language structure
1. Kurmanbayeva Sh.K. On the issues of teaching the Kazakh language through educational texts using a computer training program // Electronic scientific journal "Modern problems of science and education". - 2015. - No. 1.
2. Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G. Culture and art of speech. - Rostov-on-Don, 1995. P. 168.
3. Ivin A.A. Rhetoric: The Art of Persuasion: A Study Guide. M.: FAIR-PRESS, 2003. C. 208.
4. Ualiev N. Culture of the word. - Almaty. 2007. S. 184.
At present, the actual problem is the question of the formation of a culture of speech of future specialists. The development of speech is possible only through linguistic communication. According to experts, language abilities and language culture make it possible to find a solution in various life situations. Higher educational institutions preparing future teachers should take this provision into account. Therefore, great importance in shaping the culture, civilization, religion, language of the future generation must be given to the development and improvement of professional skills and linguistic culture. The difference between linguistic culture and other areas of linguistics lies in the use of language in everyday life, in its close connection with the culture of written and oral speech. Language culture means the appropriate use of linguistic means in communicative communication, depending on the conditions and scope of communication.
The purpose of the study: the formation of the desire for professional skills and language culture among future specialists.
Materials and methods of research:
1. Language culture is important in the training of teachers with higher education.
2. The use of new technologies, effective methods and techniques in order to form a language culture, a language norm, and professional skills.
3. Formation of public opinion in relation to speech culture, assessment of speech culture as the basis of social sciences and national culture.
Language is a means of communication. Language is a mirror that reflects the intellect of a person, the level of development of his culture, mind, and spiritual wealth. The issues of linguistic culture are so important that not a single nationality, not a single nation could leave this problem without consideration. The Kazakh people also attached great importance to the skill of speech: "A well-aimed word is a manifestation of art." The culture of speech is based on orthoepic norms. If orthoepic norms are the correct pronunciation of words, lexical norms are the correct use of words through selection, taking into account the compatibility of words, then grammatical norms in the culture of speech are considered as stable norms. In the culture of speech, an important role is played by the accuracy of thought, clarity, purity of the word, sincerity, which can influence the state of mind (regardless of the use of words: simple (neutral) or figuratively expressive), imagery.
In the culture of speech, the stylistic norm is realized only if orthoepic, punctuation, lexico-grammatical, syntactic norms and their communicative and aesthetic function are defined in the structural system of the language. Stylistic norms contribute to the formation of correct speech. The culture of speech is realized and manifested in all spheres of language use: in artistic, popular science, official and even in the everyday environment.
The culture of speech is an important indicator of the professional level of any specialist, especially entrepreneurs, lawyers, announcers, journalists, and politicians. The culture of speech, the skill of speech play an important role in the process of communication. Therefore, everyone who has to engage in organizing, managing activities, conduct business negotiations, work in the field of education, training, health care, and in the field of personal services should own the culture of speech. According to the speaker's speech, one can determine the level of his spiritual, moral development, the level of internal culture.
The culture of speech means the assimilation of the oral and written norms of the literary language (pronunciation of words, stress, use of words, grammatical, stylistic rules) and the ability to use the means of expressiveness of the language in various conditions in accordance with goals and circumstances.
Let us consider in more detail these signs of speech culture:
1. Correctness is the observance of the norms of the language. Correctness implies the correspondence of the pronunciation of words, their spelling to the stylistic norms of the language.
2. Compliance with the sphere of communication means the appropriate use of words and statements in accordance with the situation of communication.
3. Accuracy of opinion is the ability to clearly, concisely and accurately express, convey your thoughts to the listener. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to a mixture of paronyms - words that are similar in sound, but different in meaning.
4. The correctness of the perception of the stated means the correctness of the presentation of the characteristics of objects, phenomena, their connections, relationships, correspondence to reality.
5. Clarity and comprehensibility of the expressed thought requires their accessibility and comprehensibility in relation to the listener-addressee. This is achieved through the use of words, terms, phrases, borrowed (foreign) words, dialects, jargons, professionalisms, historicisms, obsolete words (archaisms) and new words (neologisms) in only one meaning.
7. The expressiveness of a word is the ability of a word to attract the attention of listeners and students, to arouse their interest.
8. It is possible to master the methods of summarizing opinions in oral or written form through the widespread use of the entire vocabulary of the language, including synonyms.
The development of a language culture begins with the ability to speak. Language, being a means of exchange of opinion, understanding, provides linguistic communication. Speech communication is a phenomenon directly related to thinking, reasoning, speech, listening, exchange of points of view, understanding, human speaking.
One of the main requirements of speech culture is the correct pronunciation and correct spelling of words. Therefore, in order for the speech to be correct, the teacher, in order to improve the quality of speech, must constantly develop the ability to formulate his thoughts, taking into account their influencing function, strive for the accuracy of the word, the effective use of speech beats, various rhythms and intonations of words and sentences.
Despite the fact that words are pronounced with a change in sounds according to orthoepic norms, they are written, except in exceptional cases, according to the rules of spelling. The scientific foundations of spelling norms involve increasing the culture of the teacher's speech by maintaining orthoepic norms, taking into account the law of syllabic vowel harmonism, non-violation of the traditional composition of the word. For example: Saryarқ a, Ағ zhar, Ағ bota, ө rtu, ө zө n, tұ rұ s, zhұ mұ shshұ, Zhetіғ ara, etc.
For the successful implementation of business relations, a deep knowledge of the language, its grammar, and vocabulary is not enough. In order to influence the interlocutor, to attract his attention, to develop the ability to conduct a conversation with friends, even with opponents, it is necessary to learn how to organize your speech in accordance with the conditions, situation and sphere of communication. If the text is prepared not by the speaker himself, but by someone else, then it will be only a dry presentation of the word, but not a living speech. In this case, the speaker will not be able to impress the listeners, touch their souls. Listeners immediately notice disharmony in the speaker's speech.
The norms, patterns, origins of the speech culture of a specialist originate from ancient times. They are reflected in the statements of great orators.
The scientist N. Ualiev in his work "Culture of the Word" defines: "The culture of the language is not only politeness, expressed in oral and written forms, but also a clear thought, the ability to choose a word, mastery of speech, the art of speech."
The Kazakh people attached special importance to the purity of the language, the mastery of speech. Even in times far from science and education, the people recognized the significance of the word: "The art of the word is the highest art", "Apt word is a manifestation of art."
The Kazakh people have always been able to appreciate a wise word: not bending under bullets, the Kazakh people bowed before a well-aimed word, an aptly said expression was equated with man's dignity, honor. The people, who valued their language, the art of the word, had a negative attitude towards all manifestations of contempt for the language and reflected this in proverbs. For example: A reasonable silent man is more expensive than an idler; talking in vain is the work of a fool; pestering the listener with an empty conversation is an obscene thing, the gossip always itches his tongue; from obscene lips - obscene speeches; from the mouth of a good person only goodness is heard, and from the mouth of a bad person only anger.
One of the main requirements of the culture of speech is the formation of language norms. Language norms are formed during the development of the literary language, some of them (spelling norms, terms, punctuation norms) are compiled by linguists, others are formed through the press on the basis of existing language systems.
The language norm is one of the signs of the literary language. We are in favor of universal knowledge of the literary language, according to the degree of linguistic culture of the population, representatives of the press, the level of their knowledge of the norms of the literary language is determined. This is one side of the language culture. In addition, language culture is also made up of politeness of speech, precise, clear expression of thought, appropriate use of words, correct construction of sentences in accordance with thought.
The language norm is formed and developed on the basis of the internal laws of the language system, which are universal. The sound system of the language, vocabulary richness, the semantics of words, the grammatical structure of the language - everything is based on the established features (specifics) of the language. They contain patterns that form the basis of the literary language. The Kazakh literary language has absorbed all the best of the national language, unified it, made it public property in order to raise the level of the language culture of the whole people.
Bibliographic link
Turabaeva L.K., Kurbanov A.G., Kairbekova U.Zh., Ukibasova K.A. FORMATION OF LANGUAGE CULTURE AND LANGUAGE NORM // International Journal of Experimental Education. - 2016. - No. 6-2. – S. 244-246;URL: http://expeducation.ru/ru/article/view?id=10228 (date of access: 03/01/2019). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"
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 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 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 the diverse and 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 - person = 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." Dahl 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 a 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 relations 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 treasury 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 nouns);
- - 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 particular 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 language 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.
So, 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 has an extralogical character."
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 a 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 commonwealth, the nature of the 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; it 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 version, 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 you can cook food, wash, wash, swim in it, but when swimming, you 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 regulatory 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.
