РОЛЬ КУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО КОМПОНЕНТА В ФОРМИРОВАНИИ ЯЗЫКОВОЙ КАРТИНЫ МИРА

Introduction

Today in modern science the role of linguistic persona as a member of a certain linguo-cultural community is duly recognized. Therefore, a surge of interest in such scientific approaches as cultural linguistics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, ethnopsycholinguistics is justified. A human being is investigated within a unity “individual – language – consciousness – culture”.  Language and culture are indivisibly connected and interacted with each other as language not only preserves cultural values created over many centuries but also hands down the accumulated wealth of traditions and customs from generation to generation.

Due to the fact that a human being is a member of a certain linguo-cultural community, it is the outer world, created by members of this linguo-cultural community that is reflected in his consciousness. Consequently, information about outer world perception by this linguo-cultural community is reflected and reserved in the consciousness of the individual. In the process of perceiving new information from the outer world, worldview is developing in the human consciousness. The notions ‘worldview’ and ‘linguistic worldview’ are investigated by such researchers as Wierzbicka A.[1], Vorontsova T.[2],  Gachev G.[3], Kolshanskiy V.[4], Krasnykh V.[5], Kubryakova E.[6], Nikitina S., Postovalova V.[8], Greimas A.J., Johnson-Laird P., Yakovleva E., Ufimtseva N. and many others.

Method

The article deals with the approach of cultural linguistics and its analysis, investigating culture and language interaction. That is culture influence on the individual worldview and his linguistic worldview.  

Discussion

The notion ‘worldview’ implies researching concepts of the outer world by the individual. If the outer world is an interaction between the individual and environment, the worldview is the result of information processing about the environment and the individual. V. Postovalova considers the notion ‘worldview’ as “an ideal, conceptual formation with a dual nature: non-objectified as the part of consciousness, will or life activity and objectified as the result of consciousness, will or life activity in particular in the form of signs, texts (including art, architecture, social structures, language) [8, P. 66]. Therefore, perceiving and conducting the primary cognitive processing of information the individual classifies and puts it to a certain place in his worldview being formed during socialization within a certain culture. 

Individual worldview is formed not only through simple perception of the outer world, contacts with reality during different kinds of presentive and cognitive activity and practice but mainly through language – understanding of observed phenomena and in the course of scientific and theoretical cognition, studying various patterns of the real world, represented in scientific, reference literature and fiction as well. The individual can understand the outer world and himself by virtue of his language which preserves social and historical experience. The main part of the world knowledge the individual obtains not through the interaction with a presentive environment but through obtaining society experience by virtue of communication with its members. As rightly pointed out by V. Postovalova, language “does not reflect the world, it represents it”. It has dual world interpretation: cognition reflects the outer world and language specifies cognition, adapts the obtained knowledge to the communicative conditions. Consequently, linguistic worldview is a part of the “inherent level of the worldview” [8, P. 67].

Many researchers investigating human worldview, in particular linguistic worldview and its functions, express another opinion on this point. V. Маslova believes that linguistic worldview “forms a certain human attitude to the outer world, regulates his behavior and identifies his attitude to the world” [7, P. 65]. However, we can’t agree with this opinion as the worldview itself is more likely to deal with such functions. And linguistic worldview should be considered as a specific physical form where worldview is preserved and realized.  In other words, linguistic worldview is “a minor, ideal world in a language form” [4, P.18].

The term ‘linguistic worldview’ is traditionally applied in research investigating linguistic cultural patterns. It reflects the perception of the outer world by members of a certain culture. In other words, being within a particular culture the individual perceives and adopts phenomena of the culture: customs, traditions, way of life, skills, ideas that is perception of the outer world or worldview existing in the society. As the process of cognizing the outer world is conducted through language and then the individual lives and develops during his/her life within the mutual interaction conducted by the language of the country where he grows up, hence he adopts the linguistic worldview of this linguistic community. Therefore, linguistic worldview of this community has specific features of the culture within it is formed.

In this regard, it is very important to mention the doctrine of linguistic determinism, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity. Under the hypothesis, people speaking different languages and living within different cultures perceive the world in a different way. We segment information from the outer world, put it in terms and allocate meanings in a certain way because we are participants of an agreement implying systematization. The agreement is effective for the linguistic community and fixed in the model system of our consciousness. [10].

The concept of Whorf’s research is based on Sapir’s statements and considerations regarding the connection between language, culture and cognition. B. Whorf tried to give content to Sapir’s formula and apply it to investigate his own language material. Therefore, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis well known as the theory of linguistic determinism, emerged. Sapir’s statement on this issue B. Whorf took as an epigraph to his article. People live not only in the objectified world and not only in the social world as they are commonly considered, they are considerably influenced by language, being a means of communication for this society. We see, hear and perceive different phenomena in a certain way basically due to the fact that language means and rules of our society imply this form of expression [10].

According to Whorf’s opinion language, imposing a certain worldview on individuals determines the norms of their cognition and consequently, their behavior. In other words, language determines the norms of cognition and behavior, controls the formation of logical categories and entire conceptions, penetrates into all aspects of social and individual life. In fact, speaking about language influence B. Whorf implies the influence of a variety of grammatical meanings considered in terms of peculiarities of their expression and segmentation i.e. takes into account just one side of language, in particular, the semantic one.  

It is interesting to point out that E. Sapir and B. Whorf have different approaches to language and cognition connection. For instance, E. Sapir speaks about parallel processes of cognition and language activity and not about language influence on cognition as Whorf states. E. Sapir points out that language can be considered just as an external side of cognition [12].

Results

Taking into account the above-mentioned, the linguistic worldview of the society developing within a certain country and its culture differs from another society and its linguistic worldview. Therefore, to our opinion the statement defining the fact that there are as many cultures as nations in the world, is reasonable. Linguistic worldview differs from worldview owing to specific features of cultures being the basis for their languages [9]. There is a basic system of presentive meanings and social stereotypes in the worldview of every nation. In other words, in the course of speaking informants of different languages rely on different linguistic worldviews.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we should point out that a human being having linguistic consciousness as a bearer of a certain culture cognizes the outer world through language. Language is a direct expression of human culture and is closely related to it. In the course of cognizing the outer world, the individual being a member of the culture, acquires his/her own system of values and ideas adopted by this culture. Therefore, every nation or linguo-cultural community has its own national worldview which forms the specific relation to the world, nature, and other people, defines the norms of language behavior in any situation [11]. In this regard, the linguistic worldview acts as an articulated result of spiritual human heritage within a certain culture. The linguistic worldview presents the systematic, integral representation of the outer world in terms of different language means. Therefore, it is certain that worldview and linguistic worldview of the linguo-cultural community are “marked” by the culture of this community and its activity. As rightly pointed out by A. Wierzbicka: “…language initially determines a certain worldview for its informants and every language has its own one” [1, P. 5-6].