Ideas about the language picture of the world. Language picture of the world

Vladimir Ivanovich Rykh, Senior Researcher, NAU ERA,

candidate of philological sciences, associate professor. Ukraine.

Conference participant.

Comparative analysis of the grammatical categories of the Russian and Arabic languages, elucidation of similarities and differences in the grammatical traditions of the two languages. Analysis of the categories of parts of speech, number, gender, animation, the degree of their compliance with the new worldview.

Keywords Keywords: Arabic language, Russian language, grammatical category, parts of speech, gender, number, animation.

Throughout its history, man has tried to know himself, to know the world around him, to understand how he appeared on this planet and how those numerous languages ​​that modern humanity uses today appeared on Earth. Leading philologists of the world put forward various versions of the origin of languages, trying to understand the patterns of the transformations that take place in them, and to find out why certain objects, phenomena and concepts received the names that we use today. Hundreds and thousands of dictionaries have appeared in our world, including etymological ones, in which the origin of various words is analyzed. Such works help to understand many processes that took place before and are taking place now, not only in the field of linguistics, but also in the development of all mankind. We will try to look at the problems of the development of languages ​​through the development of their grammatical categories and choose two languages ​​for research: Russian and Arabic.

Comparison of these two languages ​​is of particular interest also because they belong to different macrofamilies: Russian belongs to the Indo-European languages, and Arabic belongs to the Afro-Asiatic languages, which until recently were called the group of Semitic-Hamitic languages. It is known that the farther two languages ​​are from each other according to a well-known classification, the less we will find similarities between them in lexical composition and grammatical structure. Analysis of the current state of these two languages, available in official science, confirms this pattern, both at the level of vocabulary and at the level of grammatical tradition. In this article, we will analyze the state of some grammatical categories of these two languages, not only in this stage but also in the course of their development.

A significant difference between Russian and Arabic begins already at the stage of identifying parts of speech. In Russian, ten parts of speech are usually distinguished: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, particles and interjections [ 1, p. 42]. In addition, participles and participles are sometimes distinguished as independent parts of speech, and in this case the number of parts of speech reaches twelve. And if we take into account some other contenders for the role of parts of speech, then their number in the Russian language will step over two dozen. It should be noted that there is also a reverse trend aimed at reducing the number of parts of speech. Such grammarians as Potebnya A.A., Fortunatov F.F., Peshkovsky A.M. denied the presence of numerals and pronouns grammatical features allowing them to be distinguished as independent parts of speech. In this case, the number of parts of speech will be reduced to eight. And if we analyze the proposals of such researchers as J. Vandries, prof. Kudryavsky, prof. Kurilovich, acad. Fortunates, then the number of parts of speech will be reduced to three (noun, adjective and verb), and if you combine the noun with the adjective into one part of speech “name”, which J. Vandries proposes to do, then only two parts of speech will remain: name and verb [ 1, p. 43].

Against this background, the stability of the allocation of parts of speech in the Arabic language is striking. There were always three of them: name, verb, particles [ 2, p. 116]. And there are currently no proposals to increase or decrease this list. And the most optimal proposals for the allocation of parts of speech in Russian are very close to what has long existed in Arabic.

No less interesting is comparative analysis in Russian and Arabic the categories of number. In Russian, two numbers are currently distinguished: singular and plural. Three numbers are actively used in Arabic: singular, plural and dual [ 2, p. 148]. Those for whom Russian is their native language, for the most part, cannot even represent the dual number in their grammar. In their minds, the understanding that number, as a grammatical category, can only be singular or plural has long been established. Indeed, is the dual number really necessary in the language? All phenomena in our world are decomposed into opposites, for example: light and darkness, up and down, left and right, external and internal, freedom and prison, north pole and south pole. Try to insert something third into these pairs. Will not work. And if we do something contrary to this order, then the balance will be disturbed. So dualism is the reality of our world, which is present at every turn. And any reality should be reflected in the language. That is why the presence of a dual number is natural and even necessary. But how does the Russian language exist without this, as it turned out, a very necessary category? The grammatical structure of the Russian language, unlike Arabic, is in constant development: something is lost and something appears. There was also a dual number in Russian. Almost every study Old Russian language the presence of a dual number is mentioned.

The famous French linguist Meillet A., who studied the ancient state of the Slavic languages, writes: “In the common Slavic language, the dual number was used regularly. The most ancient monuments represent, in appropriate cases, the constant and strict use of dual number endings; however, with the passage of time this category is lost: in Russian, known deviations in the use of the dual number point to its disappearance at least since the 13th century. ... The disappearance of the dual number occurred gradually and left abundant traces in all languages, morphological and syntactic. The Slavic languages, together with Lithuanian, are the only Indo-European languages ​​where the dual number survived for so long. [ 3, C.260].

Our contemporary, Doctor of Philology Zholobov O.F. mentions that in the Proto-Slavic use the Old Russian structure of the dual number included five varieties of forms: free dv.h., connected dv.h., pronominal-verbal dv.h. in dialogical speech, dv. h. in constructions with two names and congruent dv.h. [ 4, p. 205]. Such a description indicates that the dual number in Old Russian was presented in even more detail than in modern Arabic.

Zholobov cites “rukama”, “rogama”, “two rounds”, “two moose” as examples of the use of words in the dual number. [ 4, p. 100]. Similar examples are given by other authors who study the category of the dual number.

In our opinion, the remains of the dual number that have been preserved in the modern Russian language should also include a group of nouns in the Russian language, which are used only in the plural. Words such as “sleigh”, “scissors”, “glasses”, “pants”, “shorts”, “trousers” most likely should also be attributed to the remnants of the dual number that was once in the Old Russian language, because all these words denote objects in which two identical elements are clearly indicated. In addition, it should be noted that the ending of such words with “-i, -y” is similar to the ending of Arabic words of the dual number after the letter “n” is truncated, which often occurs in such words when forming certain syntactic constructions, and in such words as "sledge" and "pants" these endings are completely the same. In any case, the assumption that the nouns listed above are forms of the dual number that have come down to us and at the same time are somehow connected with the Arabic language deserves special attention.

The next grammatical category to be considered is the category of animation. In Russian, this category includes names denoting people, animals, birds, fish, etc. In the Arabic language, only that which is connected with Man refers to the animate, and everything else to the inanimate. "The agreement of words depends on whether the given name designates persons or does not designate" [ 5, p. 120]. Such a distribution of names in the category of animateness-inanimateness corresponds to the worldview of the scientific school of the predecessors of the NAU ERA, which speaks of the presence in nature of three main programs based on one another: the Program of the Universe, the Program of Life and the Program of the Evolution of the Mind. Human development is determined by the Program of the Evolution of the Mind, and the Program of Life includes the entire animal and plant world. It was on this principle that the division of names between animate and inanimate occurred in the Arabic language, which once again confirms the inseparable connection between the processes occurring in nature and the development of the language. In the Russian language, the division of names into animate and inanimate occurred according to the principle “living-inanimate”, while plants fell into the category of “non-living”, and yet they were also created according to the Life Program. Thus, many questions arise related to the criteria by which names were divided into animate and inanimate. But has it always been like this in Russian? - It turns out not. Studies in the field of the Old Russian language show that the category of animateness-inanimateness in the Russian language has gone through three stages in its development. Its presence in the Old Russian language was recorded by the coincidence of the forms of the genitive and accusative cases for the singular in masculine names and for plural for all three genera. "Old Slavic monuments reflect First stage development of this grammatical category. form genitive in the meaning of the accusative in Old Church Slavonic, they usually received in singular only masculine nouns denoting persons of socially full rights ... as well as proper masculine nouns" [ 7, p. 185]. Thus, at first, only names denoting masculine persons fell into the category of animate ones, and this was recorded around the 13th century. Only from the end of the 15th century, names denoting feminine gender began to be referred to as animate. And only in the 17th century, when names denoting animals began to be attributed to this category, the category of animateness-inanimateness took shape in the form in which it exists today [ 8, p. 210]. Therefore, we can say that immediately before the 17th century, the category of animateness-inanimateness in Russian and Arabic languages ​​practically coincided in terms of the composition of names. Comparing this category in the Russian and Arabic languages, one more aspect cannot be ignored. Since in Arabic only names denoting a Person are referred to as animate, the terms “person” and “not a person” are used instead of “animate” and “inanimate” to designate it. It is these terms that are used in almost all Arabic language textbooks intended for the Russian-speaking reader. In the Arabic grammatical tradition, instead of the terms "animate" and "inanimate", terms are used that, if more accurately translated, mean "intelligent" and "unintelligent". And here again we have to state that these Arabic grammatical terms are more in line with the worldview of the NAU ERA scientific school than the terms used in the grammar of the Russian language.

The next grammatical category that it is expedient to study is the category of gender. There are three genders in Russian: masculine, feminine and neuter. There are only two of them in Arabic: male and female. In everything in nature, we see the masculine and feminine principles: man, animals, plants. And since there is no third way, it should be recognized that the Arabic grammatical tradition in this category is more in line with the state of things in nature than the grammatical structure of the Russian language. At the same time, it should be noted that in Arabic there is a group of names that can agree on both masculine and feminine, but, firstly, there are few such names, and they are usually given in a separate small list [ 9, p. 938], and, secondly, not a single Arabic grammarian tried to separate this group of names into a separate category and call it the middle or some other gender.

The history of the development of the grammatical gender in the Russian language does not allow us to note the complete similarity with the Arabic language at some stage, as was the case with other grammatical categories, however, one interesting trend can be noted. The neuter gender, in contrast to the masculine and feminine, throughout the development of this category constantly showed instability, and the names of the neuter gender turned into masculine or feminine. “The most significant event in the history of the genus is the destruction (and in some places, perhaps, the complete loss) of the category of the neuter gender with the transition of nouns of this gender usually into the feminine, and in some places (less often) into the masculine gender, which took place mainly in South Great Russian and partly in transitive dialects" [ 8, p. 207]. Thus, in the grammatical category of gender in the Russian language, there was a tendency to converge in composition with the Arabic language, but this trend did not receive proper development.

Comparing the grammatical traditions of the Russian and Arabic languages, it should be noted that against the background of constant changes taking place in the studied grammatical categories of the Russian language, the Arabic grammatical tradition impresses, first of all, with its stability and a greater degree of compliance with the Program of the Evolution of the Mind. Throughout the existence of the Arabic language, its grammatical structure has not changed: those grammatical constructions and concepts that are described in the very first works on grammar have survived to this day in the modern Arabic literary language. The Russian language has been actively developing throughout the entire period of its existence: the grammatical structure has changed significantly, the lexical composition has been significantly enriched. Is this good or bad? Probably, the disappearance of some grammatical categories had a negative impact on grammar, but other properties of the Russian language cannot be ignored. Here is how the classic of French literature Prosper Merimee writes about it: “Rich, sonorous, lively, distinguished by the flexibility of stress and infinitely varied in onomatopoeia, capable of conveying the finest shades, endowed, like Greek, with almost limitless creative thought, the Russian language seems to us created for poetry. » . I would like to recall the words of another famous cultural figure of the 20th century, the artist and philosopher N.K. Roerich, who wrote: “Is it not surprising that in Russian the word world unanimously both for peace and for the universe? These concepts are unanimous not because of the poverty of the language. The language is rich. They are essentially the same. The universe and peaceful creativity are inseparable.

Almost all the grammatical categories of the Russian language studied here at certain stages coincided in composition with the corresponding categories of Arabic and, judging by the results of the study, the Old Russian language had many important and necessary qualities which were lost during development. The reasons for these processes are hidden, of course, not so much in the language itself, but in those negative processes that took place in our society and on the planet as a whole, because. at each stage of development, the language corresponds to the level of development of civilization. Based on the numerous coincidences that are found between Old Russian and modern Arabic in the grammatical tradition, one can assume the existence of a single source, which determined the emergence and development of languages ​​on our planet. The same source, of course, will determine the language of communication in the next world, but what will this language be like, what qualities should it have, isn’t it time to understand what properties of the language should be preserved and which should be eliminated, and can we already now influence these processes? Isn't it time to start a discussion on this issue in order to determine the main directions in which the Russian language should develop in order not to repeat the mistakes that have already been made?

Bibliography:

1. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language (Grammatical doctrine of the word). Ed. G.A. Zolotova. / V.V. Vinogradov. - 4th edition. - M.: Russian language, 2001. - 720 p.
2. Grande B.M. The course of Arabic grammar in comparative historical coverage. / B.M. Grande. - 2nd edition. - M.: Eastern Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001. - 592 p.
3. Meie A. Common Slavic language [Trans. from fr. Kuznetsova P.S.]. Tot. ed. S.B. Bernstein. / A. Meie - 2nd edition. -M.: Progress, 2001. -500 p.
4. Zholobov O.F. Historical grammar Old Russian language. Volume 2. Dual number. / O. F. Zholobov, V. B. Krysko. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2001. - 240 p.
5. Kovalev A.A. Arabic textbook. / A.A. Kovalev, G.Sh. Sharbatov.: - 3rd edition. - M.: Eastern Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998. - 751 p.
6. Lias. Knights with a raised visor. / V. E. Sharashov.: -2nd ed., abbr. and dorab. - Odessa.: Druk, 2009. - 528 p.
7. Khaburgaev G.A. Old Slavonic language. / G.A. Khaburgaev. - M.: Enlightenment, 1974. - 432 p.
8. Borkovsky V.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. / V.I. Borkovsky, P.V. Kuznetsov. - M.: KomKniga, 2006. - 512 p.
9. Baranov Kh.K. Arabic-Russian dictionary. / H.K. Baranov.: - 5th edition. -M.: Russian language, 1977. - 942 p.
10. Babaitseva V.V. Russian language. Theory. / V.V. Babaitseva, L.D. Chesnokova. - 2nd edition. -M.: Enlightenment, 1993. - 256 p.
11. N.K. Roerich. Life and art. Digest of articles. - M.: Fine Arts, 1978. - 372 p. from ill.

.

<<It is a fact that any Russian word or expression (idiom) that has no motivation in the Russian language is explained through the Arabic language, its roots. Arabic unmotivated words and expressions are explained through the Russian language. All unmotivated words and expressions of other languages ​​ultimately go back to Russian or Arabic. And this is regardless of history or geography.

At the same time, there are no exceptions, the etymologies are laconic, in the corridor of axiomatic. So, forty in Arabic means “thief”, despite the fact that no bird is designated by this word in Arabic. Thus, there is no need to talk about borrowing.

During the search for etymological solutions, it turned out that peoples do not invent a language for themselves, but language forms peoples and not only, but the whole system called Life. It turned out that the words that we use to communicate are at the same time elements of the programs according to which the evolution of Life takes place from the organelles of plant cells to human communities and which control the behavior of any biological object, as well as processes, including physiological, social and even spontaneous.>>

N.N. Vashkevich.

There was no riddle of the word and no. There is a sleeping consciousness. .

After the discovery of the language core and the accompanying universal language code, there are no secrets associated with the language.

The essence of the discovery is as follows.

All Russian unmotivated words and expressions (idioms) are motivated by Arabic roots, and incomprehensible (not motivated) Arabic vocabulary, in particular Islamic terms, is motivated by Russian.

All other unmotivated words of any languages ​​ultimately come down to either Russian or Arabic. This regularity does not depend on either history or geography. Thus, the linguistic core consists of two languages, Russian and Arabic (RA).

Just a few examples.

Shark in Arabic means "gluttonous", ram - "innocent", lark "flapping its wings without flying", magpie - "thief", honeycombs - "geared", Kalmyks - "camel breeders", the Kara Sea - "icy".

Words of this kind cannot be called borrowings, because they do not exist in Arabic.

From idioms.

In the idiom "moving matchmaker", not a matchmaker, but the Arabic word savvakha "an avid traveler", in the idiom "nightmare (cold, etc.) dog" is not a dog, but an Arabic cabos (read the opposite, i.e. in Arabic ) "nightmare". There are no exceptions, so it makes no sense to multiply examples, especially since the etymological dictionary of Russian idioms has already been published.

Here are some examples of Arabic unmotivated vocabulary.

Ashwel means "left-handed" in Arabic.

Salavat - "prayers", from Russian to glorify, especially since another name for prayer in Arabic means literally "glorification".

The Qur'an in reverse reading gives in Russian NAROK, which, according to Dahl's dictionary, means TESTAMENT.

Sufism, (written TSUF) from Rus. deserts.

Hajj, pronounced: khazhzhon, "pilgrimage" from Russian walking.

If we take the ancient Greek civilization with its language and mythology, it turns out that the heroes and gods of myths have "speaking" surnames, if they are read in Arabic. Let's take such a short story: "Jealous Hera sent a mental illness to Hercules, and in a fit of rage he killed his children, born of his beloved wife Megara." In Greek, these names do not mean anything. And in Arabic, gera - "jealous", ger akel "crazy", megara - "jealousy".

The list is easy to continue. God sea ​​element Poseidon in the reverse reading, in Arabic means "caller of a storm" (who dares to object?), the mother of Bacchus, the god of wine, Semele, is not "earth", as the Greeks themselves thought, this name contains the Arabic word samula "be drunk". Actually, Russian hops from the same source. The newfangled word sommelier "specialist in wines and spirits" is not a French word at all, as we see, but an Arabic one. As for Bacchus himself, his name in Arabic means "rude, impudent impudent", that is, such as a drunken person becomes.

And here is a trace of the Russian language. in ancient Greek myths. Laocoon is the only one of the defenders of Troy who exclaimed: but the horse is false. In fact, he simply translated his name from Russian into Greek. And perhaps the most important word is theos "god". It comes from the Russian SVET. The letter vav also conveys the sound O. But the most chief god Zeus means LIGHT in Arabic. You just need to remove the Greek ending.

Is in ancient Greek mythology and a joint Russian-Arabic trace. Aphrodite, according to available dictionaries, is translated as "born from foam." But to give birth to a Russian word, and not a Greek one at all, while afr is in Arabic "the foamy crest of a sea wave."

And the action of RA extends beyond the limits of myth-making. Our language has Greek words. For example, a chameleon, in Greek "earth lion" (?), jellyfish - it seems to make no sense at all. We just know what it is Greek word, and that's the end of it. The first name in Arabic means "defending by color", the second - "burner". You can't really say. In the resorts of the Mediterranean, according to media reports, tens of thousands of people who suffered from the burning tentacles of jellyfish turned to doctors last year.

Particularly striking in its meaninglessness is the medical terminology supposedly of Greek origin. Trachoma - "rough", syndrome - "running together", leprosy (leprosy) - "bumpy". In fact, the first term is from the Arabic itrahamma "bad to see", the second - (when reading the other way around) "semi-disease", the third - "lion", literally "maned maned disease". Al-afrus "maned head". This is the name of the lion in Arabic. This disease is also called in Arabic: "lion's disease." One of the main signs of leprosy, according to medical reference books, is the so-called "lion's face".

All that has been said fully applies to reading the dark places of sacred books in various languages.

Dark passages in the Qur'an are read with "Russian eyes", then they become understandable. Biblical texts are sometimes read in Arabic, sometimes in Russian. We will not load the reader with Arabic texts, but we will work with the Bible, which is more familiar to the reader.

Let's start right with the first book of Moses, Genesis. In Hebrew it is called Bereshit. The Jews named the chapters of the book not by meaning, but by the first word of the text. In this case, it is the first word of the first sentence: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Bereshit means "in the beginning".

Literally this phrase modern man difficult to understand. The Earth is by no means the first object in the universe. As soon as there are doubts about the correctness of such an understanding, one must turn to an already tested method. This method was not born out of a void. I do about the same when I read Arabic texts every day. If the meaning does not add up, it means that I incorrectly defined the root somewhere or placed the vowels incorrectly. You have to look for another way to read. So here.

We look at the word Bereshit with "Arab eyes". Now the same letters are read like this: birasih "with his head." We will show the phonetic and morphological features of the word. Bi is the preposition of the instrument, ras "the head, in Hebrew resh, theirs is the fused pronoun of the third person (his). The final aspiration in some cases, depending on the context, can also be read as it, which happened in Hebrew.

So, we came to the conclusion that we are talking about the fact that God created heaven and earth with his head, i.e. according to his industry. First I thought, then I created. We usually do the opposite.

A little lower we read that God created man in his own image and likeness. Completely incomprehensible. Is a man, a sinful vessel filled with envy, selfishness and all the sins that exist, including seven mortals, similar to God? I can’t imagine a God filled with physical impurities, from which a person has to get rid of daily, either to walk on a small one, or even on a large one.

Naturally, in such cases, allegories are resorted to for explanation. But this method is too ambiguous and often leads to arbitrary interpretations, which, in my opinion, is unacceptable for sacred books. Didn't God have words to express his thoughts clearly? My method of penetrating the true meaning is different. Resorting to it, I again look for suspicious words on which a semantic failure could occur.

It is clear that the error lies in the phrase "in the image and likeness." It is immediately clear to the Arabist that the original sounded most likely in Arabic. Arabic texts abound in such synonymous repetitions. Well, let's translate it into Arabic. And you may need to listen to the translation with "Russian ears". The translation sounds like this: "bi-misli". It is clear that this is Russian "by thought", by craft. I think it is hardly worth challenging the simple and extremely clear idea that the Creator created everything, including man, according to His providence.

It's finished. Let's move on to other mysteries.

One of the great mysteries of the Bible is the six-day creation. You can't do everything in six days. This is contrary to the laws of nature, which are the laws of the Creator. God will not contradict or try to refute himself.

In general, anyone who undertakes to reveal the meaning of biblical and other sacred texts must learn a simple idea. It is formulated in three words: God does not speak nonsense. One might add: His language is simple and clear. If there are silly things or dark places in the texts, it is not His fault. This is the fault of translators or interpreters, and indeed of the prophets themselves, the direct producers of texts as revelations. Sometimes they hear something wrong.

There are many versions of the interpretation of the text of "Shestidnev". Some exist on the rights, as it were, recognized by the church, as long as they are set forth in theological literature. The trouble is that there is not a single logical one. Let's try to find a logical one using our method.

Let us turn directly to the text about the Creation of the World. In Arabic, this chapter is called taqwin, which means "creation", "creation". But this word also has another meaning: "structure", "device". Such a meaning does not imply a process unfolding in historical sequence. Agree, this makes a difference.

It is also useful to note that the text has a weekly structure, since seven days make up a week. Starting from this thought, we immediately exclude from the list possible languages original Greek. The Greeks did not know the seven-part week, and the month was divided into decades. Ancient Hebrew is also excluded from such languages, because the Jews called the days of the week not by numbers, as is done in the text (day one, day two ....), but by letters, i.e. their names: yom aleph, yom bet, yom gimel...

The days of the week are numbered by the Arabs: day one, day two, day three. Only Friday falls out of this account. It is called jum'a "sobornost", i.e. "Day of Conciliar Prayer" It is clear that this day was renamed in connection with the establishment of Mohammedanism in Arabia. Just as the name Sunday, in Arabic yom ahad "one day" or "first day", appeared in connection with the event of Christ's resurrection.

As we have seen, the Russian language is always accompanied by Arabic and vice versa. Let's stop our eyes on the Russian word DNI, despite the fact that this word is considered to be a translation, perhaps, of an Arabic word. If we remove the softness of the pronunciation of the sound H, and the softness-hardness of consonants usually does not differ in other languages, then we get the word DNY.

It is clear that we are not talking about the duration of the creation of the world, but about the structure of Being, its levels. Otherwise, about the seven-bottom world.

Now it's easy to rewrite the text with these levels, allowing yourself a little editing. After all, some elements of the text could appear in connection with its incorrect understanding initially. Let's not pay much attention to these little things for now.

The first day. The first level of being is cosmic plasma, the substance of the sun and stars. As science has found out, space plasma makes up more than 99% of the detected matter.

Second day. The second level is chemical, translated from Arabic as "hidden", cf. hema "dwelling, tent". Hidden in the sense that it is inaccessible to direct observation.

Day three. The third level is "physical, bodily", the level where the main concept is the body, which can be touched, seen, weighed, etc.

Day four. The fourth level is the "vegetation level", flora.

Day five. The fifth level is the "level of the animal world", fauna.

Day six. The sixth level is the "human level".

Day seven. The seventh level is the "level of information fields", the level of the Spirit, called in the Bible a day of rest. According to the consonance of the Arabic sabat "seven" and the Russian sleep, ar. subat "hibernation", the Jews strictly forbade themselves to do any work on this day.

See what happened. With such a minimal semantic turn, the text becomes not only extremely understandable, but reveals to us the scientific picture of the world. It is clear that a few centuries ago, any possibility of understanding it was excluded, since the concept of the level organization of systems was formed in science only in the 20th century. Even Tsiolkovsky wrote that a person consists of atoms. At that time, the great scientist could still afford a statement that carried the burden of man's dark ideas about the structure of the world.

In fact, a person does not consist of atoms, but of organs, organs consist of tissues, tissues consist of cells, cells consist of organelles, organelles consist of molecules, molecules consist of atoms. And all this multi-level structure is immersed in the semantic fields that control a person at all his levels of organization.

What are we talking about, if in our time far from all scientists are close to the idea of ​​a level organization of being, which, as it turns out, is set forth as if in a disguised form in the ancient text of the Bible.

Let us return, however, to biblical text. Consider the names of its main characters Moses and his brother Aaron. As we could observe in the fragments of ancient Greek mythology, the gods and heroes there bore names that were incomprehensible in Greek understanding, but which instantly became "speaking" when viewed through the prism of Arabic and Russian languages. Jewish legends are no exception in this respect.

The name Moses is believed to mean "saved from the water" in Hebrew. Indeed, there is such a fact in his biography, but his role in Jewish history this event is almost irrelevant. It is even possible that this plot was inserted into his biography in order to justify the understanding of the name, which is suggested by the Hebrew language. If you look at the name Moses in the Arabic, Koranic version: Musa, then when restoring guttural articulations that have fallen in all Semitic languages, two versions of reading appear.

The restoration of the final sound ayin gives us musa "who received strength from God."

And when restoring the guttural sound of the sound with in this name, in Arabic it is called emphatic, gives the word mousse "received a covenant." Emphaticity we here conventionally denoted by doubling the letter s.

Those who are familiar even by hearsay with the story of Moses will note to themselves that two main events are recorded in the name of Moses, which determined not only the fate of Moses himself, but the fate of the Jewish people.

The first happened at the burning bush, when Moses' attention was attracted by a strange bush that burned without burning. And suddenly, because of him, the voice of God was heard, which instructed him to save the Jewish people, who at that time were in slavery to Egyptian pharaoh. Moses, being tongue-tied and indecisive, began to refuse, but God gave him strength and determination, indicating at the same time that his eloquent brother Aaron could perform the speech part of the task.

The second happened on the fiftieth day after the Exodus, when Moses ascended Mount Sinai, at the so-called Sinai revelation. We are talking about a book called the Torah, otherwise called the Pentateuch of Moses, where the commandments of God (mitzvot) were made.

Knowing that emphatic sounds fall, and the sound C appears instead, we can easily understand that the Hebrew word mitzvot has the same root as the Arabic moussa (t) "covenants" and in the very name Moussa.

The turn came to look carefully at the name of his eloquent brother Aaron. In the Arabic version, it sounds Haroun. You don’t have to be seven spans in your forehead to guess that this is the Russian word for a talker. True, in the Arabic version, a weak consonant vav fell out, but it falls out often in Arabic, which is why it is called weak.

We must not escape the fact that one brother's name is revealed through the Arabic language, the name of another brother through the Russian language. Is this not an indication of the key with which we are now clearing up the dark passages of the Bible? And not only. Before that, we used these two languages ​​to clarify the names of the heroes and gods of ancient Greek mythology. Even earlier it was shown that all Russian idioms without exception are also revealed. Their number in the Russian language is in the thousands.

These are not hypotheses, because the work "Idioms. Etymological Dictionary" has already been published. I must say that idioms have never been the subject of etymology. This is the first time such work has been done.

Moreover, a dictionary of etymological and hidden meanings of all unmotivated Russian vocabulary has been prepared. At the same time, the vocabulary included not only native Russian words, but also borrowings from the most different languages. Two issues (up to the letter 3 inclusive) have already been published.

Some experience has also been gained in revealing the meaning of the darkest part of the vocabulary of any language - toponyms. For example, the Kara Sea. Nobody knows what the name means. There are no versions. With the use of Arabic, the word becomes extremely clear. This, it turns out, is the Icy Sea. But who can argue with that? The method gives extremely concise results, as they say, in the axiomatic corridor.

Let's go back to the Sinai revelation. According to legend, Moses, having ascended Mount Sinai, received from God not only the Book of Testaments (Torah), but also two stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed.

The issue with commandments is not very clear. There are much more of them in the Talmud - 613. This suggests that you can come up with as many commandments as you need. Why exactly ten? But we will be concerned here not so much with the number of commandments as with the tablets themselves. After all, the ten commandments are also stated in the text of the Torah. Why else have the tablets? Let's try to solve this riddle in a proven way.

Two tablets in Arabic lohatein. Weird. Because the two languages ​​in Arabic are logatein. It's not just that the two words are very different. similar friend sounds to each other. It is also very important that Moses, being an Egyptian by language, could not distinguish between these two Arabic sounds by definition. They are only available in Arabic. In all the Semitic languages ​​they have fallen. They are not here. Neither one nor the other. In some languages, they left pale traces in the form of breath-like sounds.

So what did God say to Moses: two tablets or two tongues?

We can accept the first version, then nothing becomes clearer. We can accept the second version. Then everything is explained. God revealed the keys to one of the brothers. Keys to understanding sacred texts in general, not just the Bible. Keys to understanding all words in general, not just Russian and Arabic. As for the material of the "tablets", this is not a stone, but the Arabic word for a fireplace "secret", "hidden". In our case, "not solved".

It should be noted that Moses had doubts about the tablets. Which version to choose? Stone tablets? Or unsolved keys in the form of two languages?

He chose both. Apparently, just in case. The bilingual version was embodied in a sacred Jewish bakery product called challah. In Russian vernacular, it is called a braid. Two tongues of dough are woven in it, sprinkled with poppy seeds and baked. We use it, as they say, in vain, but for the Jews it is a special Sabbath bread. No one knows, not even the Jews, why it is called that. What does the word hala mean? In fact, this Arabic word means "to unweave". And here is its meaning.

If you do not unravel two languages, then you will remain a fool (poppy in Arabic is to be a fool). And you can understand it this way: while you are a fool, do not weave two languages ​​for you.

Literature:

Arutyunova N.D. Dostoevsky's style within the framework of the Russian picture of the world. - In the book: Poetics. Stylistics. Language and culture. In memory of T.G. Vinokur. M., 1996
Jordan L.N. An attempt at a lexicographic interpretation of a group of Russian words with the meaning of feeling. – Machine translate and Applied Linguistics, vol. 13. M., 1970
Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning. M., 1976
Arutyunova N.D. Anomalies and language: To the problem« language picture of the world". - Questions of linguistics, 1987, No. 3
Lakoff D., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. - In the book: Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987
Penkovsky A.B. " Joy» and « pleasure» in the representation of the Russian language. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. cultural concepts. M., 1991
Apresyan V.Yu., Apresyan Yu.D. Metaphor in the semantic representation of emotions. - Questions of linguistics, 1993, No. 3
Yakovleva E.S. Fragments of the Russian language picture of the world. (Models of space, time and perception). M., 1994
Apresyan Yu.D. The image of a person according to the language. - In the book: Apresyan Yu.D. Selected works, vol. 2. M., 1995
Uryson E.V. Fundamental human abilities and naive « anatomy". - Questions of linguistics, 1995, No. 3
Vezhbitskaya A. Language, culture, knowledge. M., 1996
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. " Poprechny Kus". - Russian speech, 1996, No. 5
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Russian « at the same time» as an expression of attitude. - Russian speech, 1996, No. 2
Zaliznyak Anna A., Shmelev A.D. Time of day and activities. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. language and time. M., 1997
Stepanov Yu.S. Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. M., 1997
Shmelev A.D. Lexical composition Russian language as a reflection« Russian soul". - In the book: T.V. Bulygina, A.D. Shmelev. Linguistic conceptualization of the world (based on Russian grammar). M., 1997
Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Surprises in the Russian language picture of the world. – POLYTROPON. To the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov. M., 1998
Vezhbitskaya A. Semantic universals and description of languages. M., 1999
Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Moving in space as a metaphor for emotions
Zaliznyak Anna A. Notes on Metaphor
Zaliznyak Anna A. On the semantics of scrupulousness (« it's a shame», « ashamed» and « uncomfortable» against the background of the Russian language picture of the world). - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Ethical languages. M., 2000
Zaliznyak Anna A. Overcoming space in the Russian language picture of the world: a verb « get". - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Space languages. M., 2000
Krylova T.V. Status rules in naive ethics. - In the book: The word in the text and in the dictionary. Collection of articles dedicated to the seventieth anniversary of Academician Yu.D.Apresyan. M., 2000
Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Native spaces. - In the book: Logical analysis of language. Space languages. M., 2000
New Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Synonyms. Under the general guidance of Yu.D. Apresyan, vol. 1. M., 1997; issue 2. M., 2000
Rakhilina E.V. Cognitive analysis of subject names. M., 2000



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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution

Higher professional education

"Chelyabinsk State University"(FGBU VPO "ChelSU")

Faculty of Linguistics and Translation

Department of Romance Languages ​​and intercultural communication

On the topic: " Language picture peace"

Chelyabinsk 2014

Introduction

2. Language as a mirror of culture

4. Conceptual analysis

5. Relationship of pictures of the world

Conclusion

Introduction

Over the past decades, both in Russia and in the world, there has been a growing interest in the study of culture from the standpoint of linguistics and psycholinguistics, primarily to what is behind the language, speech, speech activity, i.e. to the person himself as a carrier as a subject of speech activity. A person, as a bearer of a certain culture and speaking a certain language, is considered in close relationship with the bearer of cultures and languages ​​of the peoples of the world.

The relevance of the study of the national and cultural specificity of the picture of the world is recognized in recent times world science and practice, which is in good agreement with the general tendency of different sciences to place culture at the center of theoretical constructions, one way or another related to the study of man. The problem of language and culture concerns the very development of the science of language, which at present is not confined within its own linguistic structure and requires consideration of extralinguistic factors.

Actual case study of how the person himself as a national personality in all the diversity of his manifestations was reflected in linguistic units.

Goals of the work:

1) study of the picture of the world and its components;

2) identify the constituent elements of the national language personality;

The practical value of the study lies in the fact that the results obtained can be used in teaching theoretical and special courses in general and comparative linguistics, typology of languages, psycholinguistics, lexicology, linguoculturology, in the practice of teaching foreign languages ​​and in compiling various kinds of dictionaries and teaching aids, as well as for developing topics for diploma and term papers.

1. Relationship between language and culture. Language as the basis of culture

Since the 19th century and to this day, the problem of the relationship, interaction of language and culture has been one of the central ones in linguistics.

The first attempts to solve this problem are seen in the works of W. Humboldt back in 1895, the main provisions of the concept of which can be reduced to the following:

material and spiritual culture are embodied in the language;

Every culture is national, its national character expressed in language through a special vision of the world;

The language has an internal form specific to each people. The internal form of the language is the expression of the "folk spirit", its culture;

Language is a mediating link between a person and the world around him.

The idea that language and reality are structurally similar was expressed by L. Elmslev, who noted that the structure of language can be equated with the structure of reality or taken as a more or less deformed reflection of it.

E.F. Tarasov notes that the language is included in the culture, since the "body" of the sign is a cultural object, in the form of which the linguistic and communicative ability of a person, the meaning of a sign is also a cultural formation that arises only in human activity. Also, culture is included in the language, since all of it is modeled in the text.

Obviously, no one will find culture in a state of limbo, since all human communities are made up of human beings who talk, but culture, and in fact it does, can be studied in considerable isolation, even more than human the being is investigated in physical anthropology; meanwhile, linguistics does not study what a human being talks about, but rather the structure of a conversation. What it says is called (by both philosophers and semantics) meaning, but for most anthropologists this is what culture is [Wegelin 1949:36].

Human culture, on the other hand, is not only a repository of disparate acts. Anthropologists (or at least most of them) long ago abandoned the notion that culture is simply a collection of characteristics, acts, and artifacts. Rather, culture is, in the words of Kluckhohn and Kelly, "a historically established system of overt and covert lifestyle patterns that is accepted by all or specially designated members of a group." The sum of knowledge acquired by a person in the process of familiarization with any culture is an organized (or structured) set of behaviors from which he selects and uses what is applicable to emerging situations. Everyday life. Over time, and especially under the influence of many new situations, for example, during periods of rapid acculturation in the human group, new options for living arrangements and modifications of previous patterns arose, consciously or unconsciously drawn from the situations and problems faced by group members.

Language easily fits into this concept of culture. Just as a culture incorporates all historically established, structured patterns of behavior that are “accepted by all or specially designated members of a group,” so language includes patterns of spoken language with exactly the same attributes. Languages, like other aspects of culture, are varied and dissimilar; each society has its own language, as well as its own techniques, forms of social and political organization, and models of economic and religious behavior. Language, like any other aspect of culture, accumulates and constantly transforms "the gigantic and anonymous subconscious work of many generations" [Sapir 1921:235]. Finally, it is absolutely impossible to imagine the origin or development of culture separately from language, because language is such a part of culture that, to a greater extent than any other, enables a person not only to acquire own experience in the process of continuous learning, but also to use the experience and knowledge acquired in the past or present of other people who are or were members of the group. To the extent that culture as a whole consists of generally understood moments, its linguistic aspect is its most vital and necessary part.

2. Language as a mirror of culture

Language is a mirror of the surrounding world, it reflects reality and creates its own picture of the world, specific and unique for each language and, accordingly, the people, ethnic group, speech community that uses this language as a means of communication. Comparison of language with a mirror is possible: it really reflects the world. Behind every word is an object or phenomenon of the real world. Language reflects everything: geography, climate, history, living conditions. But between language and the real world there is a person.

It is a person who perceives and realizes the world through the sense organs and, on this basis, creates a system of ideas about the world. Having passed them through his consciousness, having comprehended the results of this perception, he transmits them to other members of his speech group with the help of language. In other words, thinking stands between reality and language. The word reflects not the object of reality itself, but its vision, which is imposed on the native speaker by the idea in his mind, the concept of this object. The concept is compiled at the level of generalization of some basic features that form this concept, and therefore is an abstraction, a distraction from specific features. The path from the real world to the concept and further to verbal expression is different for different peoples, which is due to differences in history, geography, the characteristics of the life of these peoples and, accordingly, differences in the development of their public consciousness. Since our consciousness is conditioned both collectively (by way of life, customs, traditions, etc., that is, by everything that was defined above by the word culture in its broad, ethnographic sense), and individually (by the specific perception of the world inherent in this particular individual) , then language reflects reality not directly, but through two zigzags: from the real world to thinking and from thinking to language.

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

3. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world

AT modern understanding the picture of the world is a kind of portrait of the universe, it is a kind of copy of the universe, which involves a description of how the world works, what laws it is governed by, what underlies it and how it develops, how space and time look like, how various objects interact with each other what place a person occupies in this world, etc. Most full view about the world gives its scientific picture, which is based on the most important scientific achievements and organizes our knowledge about the various properties and patterns of being. We can say that this is a kind of systematization of knowledge, it is holistic and at the same time complex structure, which can include both the general scientific picture of the world and the pictures of the world of individual private sciences, which in turn can be based on a number of different concepts, moreover, concepts that are constantly updated and modified.

There are three directions in the study and picture of the world:

Philosophical (from Hegel to the present day);

Psychological or psycholinguistic (L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev and others);

· Linguistic (Yu.N. Karaulov, Yu.S. Stepanov and others).

The concept of a picture of the world has become central in a number of sciences such as cultural studies, ethnography, psychology, and linguistics. The idea of ​​a picture of the world as some summary knowledge is traditional. The very concept of a picture of the world is not always interpreted unambiguously, as philosophers, psychologists, neurophysiologists, and psycholinguists refer to it. [Zotova M.E. 2013: 8].

The very concept of a linguistic picture of the world (but not the term that names it) goes back to the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt, an outstanding German philologist, philosopher and statesman. Considering the relationship between language and thinking, Humboldt came to the conclusion that thinking does not just depend on language in general, but to a certain extent it depends on each specific language. He, of course, was well aware of the attempts to create universal sign systems, similar to those that, for example, mathematics has. Humboldt does not deny that a certain number of words from different languages ​​can be "reduced to a common denominator", but in the vast majority of cases this is impossible: the individuality of different languages ​​is manifested in everything - from the alphabet to ideas about the world; a huge number of concepts and grammatical features of one language often cannot be preserved when translated into another language without their transformation.

Cognition and language mutually determine each other, and moreover: according to Humboldt, languages ​​are not just a means of depicting already known truth, but a tool for discovering the still unknown, and in general, language is “an organ that forms thought”, it is not just a means of communication, but it is also an expression of the spirit and outlook of the speaker. Through the diversity of languages, the richness of the world and the diversity of what we know in it are revealed to us, since different languages ​​give us different ways thinking and perception of the reality around us. The famous metaphor proposed by Humboldt in this connection is the metaphor of circles: in his opinion, each language describes around the nation it serves a circle, beyond which a person can only go so far as he immediately enters the circle of another language. The study of a foreign language is therefore the acquisition of a new point of view in the worldview that has already developed in a given individual.

And all this is possible because human language is a special world that is located between the external world that exists independently of us and the inner world that is enclosed within us. This thesis of Humboldt, voiced in 1806, in a little over a hundred years will turn into the most important neo-Humboldtian postulate of language as an intermediate world (Zwischenwelt).

The merit of L. Weisgerber lies in the fact that he introduced the concept of "linguistic picture of the world" into the scientific terminological system. This concept determined the originality of his linguo-philosophical concept, along with the "intermediate world" and "energy" of language.

The main characteristics of the linguistic picture of the world, which L. Weisgerber gives it, are the following:

The language picture of the world is a system of all possible contents: spiritual, which determine the uniqueness of the culture and mentality of a given linguistic community, and linguistic, which determine the existence and functioning of the language itself;

language culture linguo-specific

the linguistic picture of the world, on the one hand, is a consequence of the historical development of the ethnos and language, and, on the other hand, is the cause of their peculiar path further development;

· the linguistic picture of the world as a single "living organism" is clearly structured and in linguistic expression is multi-level. It defines a special set of sounds and sound combinations, structural features of the articulatory apparatus of native speakers, prosodic characteristics of speech, vocabulary, word-formation capabilities of the language and the syntax of phrases and sentences, as well as its own paremiological baggage. In other words, the linguistic picture of the world determines the total communicative behavior, understanding of the external world of nature and the inner world of man, and the language system;

the linguistic picture of the world is changeable in time and, like any “living organism”, is subject to development, that is, in the vertical (diachronic) sense, it is partly non-identical to itself at each subsequent stage of development;

The linguistic picture of the world creates the homogeneity of the linguistic essence, contributing to the consolidation of linguistic, and hence its cultural originality in the vision of the world and its designation by means of language;

The language picture of the world exists in a homogeneous, original self-consciousness of the linguistic community and is transmitted to subsequent generations through a special worldview, rules of conduct, lifestyle, imprinted with the means of language;

· the picture of the world of any language is that transformative power of the language, which forms the idea of ​​the surrounding world through the language as an “intermediate world” among the native speakers of this language;

the linguistic picture of the world of a particular linguistic community is its general cultural heritage

So, the concept of a linguistic picture of the world includes two interconnected, but different ideas:

· that the picture of the world offered by the language differs from the “scientific” one (in this sense, the term “naive picture of the world” is also used).

· that each language "draws" its own picture, depicting reality in a slightly different way than other languages ​​do.

The scientific picture of the world differs significantly from religious concepts of the universe: the scientific picture is based on an experiment, thanks to which it is possible to confirm or refute the reliability of certain judgments; and the basis of the religious picture is faith (in sacred texts, in the words of the prophets, etc.).

A naive picture of the world reflects the material and spiritual experience of a people speaking a particular language; it can be quite different from a scientific picture, which in no way depends on the language and can be common to different peoples. The naive picture is formed under the influence cultural property and traditions of a particular nation, relevant in a certain historical era and is reflected, first of all, in the language - in its words and forms. Using in speech words that carry certain meanings in their meanings, the carrier specific language, without realizing it, accepts and shares a certain view of the world.

The reconstruction of the linguistic picture of the world is one of the critical tasks modern linguistic semantics. The study of the linguistic picture of the world is carried out in two directions, in accordance with the named two components of this concept. On the one hand, based on a systemic semantic analysis of the vocabulary of a particular language, a complete system of representations reflected in a given language is reconstructed, regardless of whether it is specific to a given language or universal, reflecting a “naive” view of the world as opposed to a “scientific” one. On the other hand, individual concepts characteristic of a given language, that is, linguistically specific concepts that have two properties, are studied: firstly, they are “key” for a given culture, since they provide a “key” to its understanding, and secondly, they simultaneously correspond to words are poorly translated into other languages: a translation equivalent is either absent at all, for example, for Russian words maybe, daring, restless, ashamed; or there is such an equivalent in principle, but it does not contain precisely those components of meaning that are for given word specific, for example, the Russian words soul, fate, pity, gather, get, as it were. AT last years in semantics, a trend is developing that integrates both approaches; its goal is to recreate the Russian language picture of the world on the basis of a comprehensive (linguistic, cultural, semiotic) analysis of the linguo-specific concepts of the Russian language in an intercultural perspective.

4. Conceptual analysis

One of the common methods of reconstructing the linguistic picture of the world is the analysis of the metaphorical compatibility of words of abstract semantics, which reveals a “sensually perceived”, “concrete” image, which is compared in a naive picture of the world with this “abstract” concept and ensures the admissibility in the language of a certain class of phrases, which are also called "metaphorical". So, for example, from the existence in the Russian language of combinations such as: longing gnaws at him, longing stuck, longing attacked - we can conclude that “longing” in the Russian language picture of the world appears as a kind of predatory beast. This technique was first applied independently in the book by N.D. Arutyunova "The proposal and its meaning", in the article by V.A. Uspensky "On the real connotations of abstract nouns", as well as in the famous book by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson "Metaphors we live by".

Expressions such as "anguish gnaws" or "crushed with grief" introduce two situations into consideration: one, "invisible", "abstract", the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhich we want to convey (i.e., which is our "goal"), and the other, "visible ”, “concrete”, the similarity with which is the “source” of information, a means of creating the desired representation.

To imagine means to "put before oneself" in order to see. This is what metaphor is for: to imagine what is difficult or impossible to see, we imagine what is easy to see, and say that "that" is like "that." However, it rarely happens that some abstract object is in all respects similar to some concrete object. Much more often, the sought-after invisible object has several properties, and at the same time, a specific, “representable” object with the same set of properties cannot be found. In this case, each property, being an even more abstract and invisible entity, seems to “grow” into separate subject by which it is represented. So, for example, grief and despair, on the one hand, and reflections and memories, on the other, have a certain property, which is represented by the image of a reservoir: the first two can be deep, and the second two can immerse a person. If you try to describe this property without using a metaphor (which turns out to be much more difficult), then, apparently, it consists in the fact that the listed internal states make contact with the outside world inaccessible for a person - as if he were at the bottom of a reservoir. Another property of the listed internal states is represented by the image of a living being that has power over the subject or subjecting him to violence. Reflections and memories, in addition, can flood (the image of a wave) - here again the water element arises, but it represents a different property: the suddenness of the onset of these states (plus the idea of ​​​​complete absorption - about the same as immersing yourself in).

Thus, each abstract name brings to life the idea of ​​more than one specific subject, but about a whole range of different objects, possessing at the same time the properties represented by each of them. In other words, the analysis of the compatibility of a word of abstract semantics makes it possible to identify a number of different and irreducible images that are compared to it in everyday consciousness. So, the idea that conscience is a “little rodent”, restored on the basis of combinations with the verbs to gnaw, bite, scratch, sink teeth; remorse (the idea of ​​"small" seems to arise from the fact that conscience in these contexts is thought of as being inside a person) reflects the property of conscience to deliver a certain kind of unpleasant sensations. What nominal kind - can only be described through comparison: as if someone small bites or scratches you. The combinations of a pure or impure conscience, “a stain on conscience” are based on an image that represents another property of conscience: to direct a person’s actions away from evil (represented by the image of something unclean). Finally, compatibility with verbs to speak, command, exhort, doze, wake up, expressions of remorse of conscience, the voice of conscience, etc., based on likening conscience to a person, reflect another property of conscience - its ability to control thoughts, feelings and actions. It is possible that conscience has some other properties that are represented by other objects.

5. Relationship of pictures of the world

Modern authors define the picture of the world as “a global image of the world that underlies a person’s worldview, that is, expressing the essential properties of the world in the understanding of a person as a result of his spiritual and cognitive activity” [Postovalova 2001: 21]. But the "world" should be understood not only as a visual reality, or surrounding a person reality, but as consciousness-reality in a harmonious symbiosis of their unity for a person.

The picture of the world is central concept concept of man, expresses the specifics of his existence. The concept of a picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts expressing the specifics human being, its relationship with the world, the most important conditions for its existence in the world. The picture of the world is a holistic image of the world, which is the result of all human activity. It arises in a person in the course of all his contacts and interactions with the outside world. It can be everyday contacts with the world, and subject-practical activity of a person. Since all parties participate in the formation of a picture of the world mental activity of a person, starting with sensations, perceptions, ideas and ending with a person’s thinking, it is very difficult to talk about any one process associated with the formation of a person’s picture of the world. Man contemplates the world, comprehends it, feels, cognizes, reflects. As a result of these processes, a person has an image of the world, or worldview.

"Imprints" of the picture of the world can be found in language, in gestures, in fine arts, music, rituals, etiquette, things, facial expressions, in people's behavior. The picture of the world forms the type of a person's attitude to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms for a person's behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life (Apresyan 1998:45).

As for the reflection of the picture of the world in the language, the introduction of the concept of "picture of the world" in anthropological linguistics makes it possible to distinguish two types of human influence on the language:

the influence of psychophysiological and other kinds of human characteristics on the constitutive properties of the language;

· the influence on the language of various pictures of the world - religious-mythological, philosophical, scientific, artistic.

Language is directly involved in two processes related to the picture of the world. Firstly, in its depths a linguistic picture of the world is formed, one of the deepest layers of a person's picture of the world. Secondly, the language itself expresses and explicates other pictures of the human world, which, through special vocabulary, enter the language, bringing into it the features of a person, his culture. With the help of language, the experiential knowledge acquired by individual individuals is transformed into a collective property, a collective experience. Each of the pictures of the world, which as a displayed fragment of the world represents the language as a special phenomenon, sets its own vision of the language and in its own way determines the principle of the language. The study and comparison of different visions of the language through the prisms of different pictures of the world can offer linguistics new ways to penetrate into the nature of the language and its knowledge.

It is customary to delimit the linguistic picture of the world from the conceptual or cognitive model of the world, which is the basis of the linguistic embodiment, the verbal conceptualization of the totality of human knowledge about the world. The linguistic or naive picture of the world is also commonly interpreted as a reflection of everyday, philistine ideas about the world. The idea of ​​a naive model of the world is as follows: every natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving the world, which is imposed as a mandatory requirement for all native speakers. Yu.D. Apresyan calls the linguistic picture of the world naive in the sense that scientific definitions and linguistic interpretations do not always coincide in volume and even content [Apresyan 1998:357]. The conceptual picture of the world or the “model” of the world, in contrast to the linguistic one, is constantly changing, reflecting the results of cognitive and social activities, but individual fragments of the linguistic picture of the world retain for a long time the vestigial, relic ideas of people about the universe.

Epistemological, cultural and other features of linguistic conceptualization are closely related, and their demarcation is always conditional and approximate. This applies both to the differences in the methods of nomination, and to the specifics of the linguistic division of the world.

It should be taken into account that the perception of this or that situation, this or that object is also directly dependent on the subject of perception, on his background knowledge, experience, expectations, on where he himself is located, what is directly in his field of vision. This, in turn, makes it possible to describe the same situation from different points of view, perspectives, which undoubtedly expands the understanding of it. No matter how subjective the process of “constructing the world” may be, it, nevertheless, most directly involves taking into account the most diverse objective aspects of the situation, real situation affairs in the world; the consequence of this process is the creation of a “subjective image of the objective world”

When evaluating the picture of the world, it should be understood that it is not a reflection of the world and not a window to the world, but it is a person's interpretation of the world around him, a way of his understanding of the world. “Language is by no means a simple mirror of the world, and therefore it captures not only what is perceived, but also meaningful, conscious, interpreted by a person” [Kubryakova 1967:95]. This means that the world for a person is not only what he perceived through his senses. On the contrary, a more or less significant part of this world is made up of the subjective results of a person's interpretation of what is perceived. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that language is a “mirror of the world”, but this mirror is not ideal: it does not represent the world directly, but in the subjective cognitive refraction of a community of people.

There are many interpretations of the concept of "language picture of the world". This is due to the existing discrepancies in the worldviews of different languages, since the perception of the surrounding world depends on the cultural and national characteristics of the speakers of a particular language. Each of the pictures of the world sets its own vision of the language, so it is very important to distinguish between the concepts of "scientific (conceptual) picture of the world" and "linguistic (naive) picture of the world".

6. Russian language picture of the world

Pictures of the world drawn by different languages ​​are somewhat similar to each other, somewhat different. Differences between language pictures reveal themselves, first of all, in linguo-specific words that are not translated into other languages ​​and contain concepts specific to a given language. The study of linguo-specific words in their interrelationship and in an intercultural perspective allows today to talk about the restoration of quite significant fragments of the Russian language picture of the world and the ideas that constitute them.

As noted by many researchers (in particular, N.I. Tolstoy, A.D. Shmelev), the Russian language picture of the world is characterized by the opposition of the “sublime” and “mundane”, “the world of the mountains” and the “world of the earth”, simultaneously with a clear preference for the first . Whole line important concepts exist in the Russian language in such two forms, which are sometimes even called by different words - cf. the following pairs of words, contrasted, in particular, on the basis of "high" - "low": true and truth,duty and duty,good and good. A prime example this kind of value polarization can serve as a pair joy is pleasure.

between words joy and pleasure there are many differences, among which two are the main ones that determine all the others. The first is that joy is a feeling and pleasure just a "positive sensual-physiological reaction." The second and most important thing is that joy refers to the "high", spiritual world, while pleasure refers to the "low", profane, bodily. At the same time, since the opposition "soul - body" is already included in the system of other axiologically significant oppositions (high - low, heavenly - earthly, sacred - profane, internal - external, etc.), the corresponding distribution occurs in the pair joy - pleasure.

Regarding the place of intellect in the Russian language picture of the world, the following can be said. Indicative is in itself the absence of a concept in it, comparable in its significance to soul(the significance of the concept is manifested, in particular, in its elaboration, i.e., the richness of metaphors and idioms. But the main thing is that mind in the Russian linguistic consciousness is a relatively small value. AT famous poem Tyutchev You can't understand Russia with your mind... contains not only the corresponding explicit statement, but also a hidden implication (following from a comparison with the next line “one cannot measure a common arshin”) - that true knowledge mind and is not achieved. That is, the knowledge that is truly valuable is localized in soul or in a heart, not in head.

Comparison of Russian words happy,happiness and English happy, happiness shows that the discrepancies between them are so significant that their equivalence is generally questionable. According to A. Vezhbitskaya, the word happy is “ everyday word" in English, and happiness means "an emotion associated with a 'real' smile." According to supporters of the theory of “basic emotions”, which are distinguished on the basis of the universal features of facial expressions corresponding to them, the emotion denoted in English by the word happiness is also among them.

Whereas the Russian happiness is by no means an "everyday word": it belongs to the "high" register and carries a very strong emotional charge. In no sense happiness does not belong in Russian to the number of "basic emotions". Unlike the English happy, which states that a person’s state corresponds to a certain norm of emotional well-being, the Russian word happy describes a condition that is definitely abnormal. Happiness belongs to the sphere of the ideal and in reality unattainable (cf. Pushkin There is no happiness in the world...); is somewhere near the "meaning of life" and other fundamental and incomprehensible categories of being.

It is often noted that the boundaries between the times of the day do not coincide in the representation of speakers of different languages. So, for speakers of English or French, morning is the part of the day from midnight to noon (for example, one in the morning), while for Russian speakers, the time immediately following midnight is night, not morning: we say one in the morning, but not hour of the morning. However, the differences do not end there: the peculiarity of the Russian language picture of the world is that the time of day in it is determined by the activity that fills it.

The Russian language has the means for a very detailed designation of the first part of the day: in the morning,in the morning,since morning,in the morning,by the morning,in the morning,morning,in the morning, etc. At the same time, as it turns out, when deciding which one to choose, we take into account, in particular, what the person was doing during, before and after the onset of this time of day. Yes, we can say Tomorrow morning I would like to run to the river to swim - while the phrase Tomorrow in the morning I would like to sleep more sounds a little strange. Really, in the morning can only do some vigorous activity. Utrechkom expresses readiness and desire to start daily activities, the beginning of which is morning; hence the tone of cheerfulness and Have a good mood. Expressions next morning,in the morning and since morning are used when we are talking about situations that have just arisen or resumed after a break for the night. On the contrary, expressions in the morning and by the morning are permissible only when it comes to something that lasted all night. So if we say that someone drinking wine in the evening,and in the morning - cognac, this means that a break was taken from drinking alcoholic beverages (most likely for sleep), but if you say Drinking wine in the evening,and in the morning - cognac, this will mean that they drank without a break, or, in any case, did not go to bed.

So, the designation of the time of day in the Russian language picture of the world depends on what kind of activity it is filled with - in contrast to the Western European model, where, on the contrary, the nature of the activity that should be done is determined by the time of day. “Now we will have breakfast: every thing has its time,” says the heroine of the opera Rose Cavalier in response to the impulse of passion that seized her young lover that morning.

maybe,somehow and somehow. One of the main ideological components of the Russian language picture of the world is the idea of ​​the unpredictability of the world: a person can neither foresee the future nor influence it. This idea is implemented in several versions. On the one hand, it enters into the meaning of a number of specific words and expressions related to the problem of probability, such as but what if?, just in case, if anything, as well as in the famous Russian maybe, which has recently been deprecated. All these words are based on the idea that the future cannot be foreseen; therefore, one cannot completely insure against troubles, nor exclude that, against all odds, something good will happen. On the other hand, the idea of ​​the unpredictability of the world turns into unpredictability of the result, including the result of one's own actions.

Verb going to is an one of the most characteristic and difficult to translate words of the Russian language. AT modern language it is very frequent, especially in colloquial speech. The most striking feature going to consists of the following. Although this verb refers primarily to a certain mental state subject, the idea of ​​the process is also strong enough in it. This is partly due to the relationship with other values. going to, compare: Letting your hair down,I sat on the bed for a long time,everyone is going to decide something,then closed her eyes,leaning on a pillow,and suddenly fell asleep(I. Bunin).

The process implied by the verb going to, can partly be understood as a process of mobilization of internal and sometimes even external resources. However, to a much greater extent going to suggests a purely metaphysical process that has no tangible manifestations. The idea of ​​such a process is the specificity of the Russian language. going to and distinguishes it as from close words of the Russian language ( mean,intends), and from its equivalents in European languages ​​(which correlate rather with mean, than with going to), cf. English to intend(as well as to be going to).

Conclusion

The study of the linguistic picture of the world is currently relevant for solving the problems of translation and communication, since translation is carried out not just from one language to another language, but from one culture to another. Even the concept of speech culture is now interpreted quite broadly: it is understood not only as the observance of specific language norms, but also as the ability of the speaker to correctly formulate his own thoughts and adequately interpret the speech of the interlocutor, which in some cases also requires knowledge and awareness of the specifics of one or another worldview, concluded in linguistic forms.

The concept of a linguistic picture of the world plays an important role in applied research related to the solution of problems within the framework of theories artificial intelligence: now it has become clear that understanding a natural language by a computer requires understanding the knowledge and ideas about the world structured in this language, which is often associated not only with logical reasoning or with a large amount of knowledge and experience, but also with the presence of peculiar metaphors in each language - not just linguistic, but metaphors, which are forms of thoughts and require correct interpretations.

The linguistic picture of the world reflects the everyday-empirical, cultural or historical experience some language community. It should be noted that researchers approach the consideration of the national and cultural specificity of certain aspects or fragments of the world picture from different positions: some take it as the source language, analyze the established facts of interlingual similarity or divergence through the prism of linguistic systemicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the source is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguocultural community, and the image of the world is in the center of attention. The picture of the world is the central concept of the concept of man, expresses the specifics of his existence. The picture of the world forms the type of a person's attitude to the world - nature, other people, sets the norms of human behavior in the world, determines his attitude to life.

Based on the foregoing, we can say that the language acts as a mirror of national culture, its custodian. Linguistic units, primarily words, fix the content, which in one way or another goes back to the living conditions of the people - the native speaker. In our analysis English, as in any other, the so-called national-cultural semantics of the language is important and interesting, i.e. those linguistic meanings that reflect, fix and transmit from generation to generation the features of nature, the nature of the economy and social structure of the country, its folklore, fiction, arts, sciences, as well as features of life, customs and history of the people.

It can be argued that the national-cultural semantics of the language is a product of history, which also includes the past of culture. And the richer the history of the people, the brighter and more meaningful the units of the language.

List of used literature

1. Vezhbitskaya A. Language, culture, knowledge. M., 1996.

2. Levontina I.B., Shmelev A.D. Russian "at the same time" as an expression of life position. - 1996.

3. A.A. Zaliznyak, I.B. Levontin and A.D. Shmelev. Key ideas of the Russian language picture of the world, 2005.

4. Shmelev A.D. The lexical composition of the Russian language as a reflection of the "Russian soul".

5. E. Sapir. "The Status of Linguistics as a Science", 1993

6. Penkovsky A.B. "Joy" and "pleasure" in the representation of the Russian language", 1991.

7. http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/YAZIKOVAYA_KARTINA_MIRA.html

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The phenomenon of the concept of "picture of the world". Functional, figurative and discursive, nominative means of language as elements of the language picture of the world. Analysis of a fragment of the linguistic picture of the world of the lexico-semantic field "Pleasure" in modern English.

abstract, added 09/06/2009


Study of the influence of culture and lifestyle on the semantic features of the language. Identification of linguistic and cultural features of the picture of the world of Great Britain. Scientific and theoretical foundations for reflecting the socio-cultural factors of the Russian language picture of the world.

term paper, added 06/28/2010


The concept of a linguistic picture of the world. Linguistic picture of the world in linguoculturology and ethnopsycholinguistics. Differences in scientific and naive pictures of the world. The history of the consideration of the language picture of the world in science and linguistics. The study of the language picture of the world in linguistics.

abstract, added 12/01/2008


National and cultural specificity of fragments of the picture of the world as the basis for understanding the meaning of a speech work. Analysis of the facts of interlingual similarities or discrepancies; elements of the national linguistic identity. The concept of a frame, patterns of text construction.

abstract, added 02.11.2011


The essence of the language picture of the world. neo-Humboldtian theory. National language. Territorial and social dialects as a special language form. Peculiarities German dialects. general description and lexical features Bavarian dialect. The concept of isoglosses.

term paper, added 06/04/2016


Interrelation of language and culture. The content of the concept of the language picture of the world in modern linguistics. Essence and main properties of figurativeness, classification of means. reflection in language imagery socio-cultural factors of the English language personality.

thesis, added 06/28/2010


Linguistic picture of the world as a form of fixation of national culture. The concept as the basis of the language picture of the world, phraseological unit- way of representation. Comparison of representation of somatic space in Russian and English language pictures of the world.

thesis, added 03/23/2013


The concept of a linguistic picture of the world and the role of metaphor in its creation. Analysis of the use of various metaphorical structures in the texts of the English-language press. Evaluation of the use of metaphors in the texts of the English-language press and ways of creating a linguistic picture of the world.

thesis, added 03/24/2011


Modern views about the linguistic picture of the world. Concepts like lexical categories that determine the linguistic picture of the world. The concept "brother" in artistic comprehension, its place in the Russian language picture of the world and verbalization in Russian folk tales.

thesis, added 02/05/2014


Interaction of mythological and linguistic pictures of the world in the text of a literary fairy tale. Stereotype as a component of the national language picture of the world. Realization of the mythological and linguistic pictures of the world in the context of the fairy tale "The Hobbit". Functions of mythologems in the text.

When considering the picture of the world, one cannot fail to mention the linguistic aspect, which goes back to the ideas of the German philosopher, educator, public and statesman, diplomat Friedrich Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) and his neo-Humboldtian followers, among whom the German linguist, a specialist in the field of linguistics, should be especially noted. Johann Leo Weisgerber (1899–1985). At the same time, however, it should be said that ideas about the linguistic picture of the world are based on the ideas of American ethnolinguists, in particular, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity (for more details, see below).

The concept of a linguistic picture of the world

W. Humboldt (Fig. 2.1) believed that language creates an intermediate world between the human community and reality through a system of its concepts.

“Each language,” he wrote, “forms a kind of sphere around the people, which must be left in order to enter the sphere of another people. Therefore, the study of a foreign language should always be the acquisition of a new point of view of the world.”

Rice. 2.1.Friedrich Wilhelm von Humboldt, German philosopher and public figure

Rice. 2.2. Johann Leo Weisgerber, German linguist, specialist in linguistics

A follower of W. Humboldt, Leo Weisgerber (Fig. 2.2), noted the stimulating role of language in relation to the formation of a single picture of the world in a person. He believed that "language allows a person to combine all experience into a single picture of the world and makes him forget how earlier, before he learned the language, he perceived the world around him" . It was L. Weisgerber who introduced the concept of a linguistic picture of the world into anthropology and semiotics, and the term itself was first used in one of the works of an Austrian scientist, philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), which was called "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1921).

According to L. Weisgerber, "the vocabulary of a particular language includes, in general, along with the totality of linguistic signs, also the totality of conceptual mental means that the language community has; and as each native speaker studies this dictionary, all members of the language community master these mental means; in this sense, we can say that the possibility mother tongue consists in the fact that it contains in its concepts a certain picture of the world and transmits it to all members of the linguistic community.

The relationship of culture, language and human consciousness attracts the attention of many scientists. Over the past 20 years, research has been carried out on the linguistic picture of the world among native speakers of a certain language, and the features of the perception of reality within the framework of a particular culture have been actively studied. Among the scientists who addressed these problems in their works are the outstanding Soviet and Russian philosophers, culturologists, linguists M. S. Kagan, L. V. Shcherba and many others.

According to the famous philosopher, culturologist Moses Samoilovich Kagan (1921–2006), "culture needs a multitude of languages ​​precisely because its information content is multilaterally rich and each specific information process needs adequate means of implementation" .

Academician, Soviet and Russian linguist Lev Vladimirovich Shcherba (1880-1944) expressed the idea that "the world that is given to us in our direct experience, remaining the same everywhere, is comprehended in different ways in various languages, even in those spoken by peoples representing a certain unity from the point of view of culture.

Soviet linguist and psychologist Nikolay Ivanovich Zhinkin (1893–1979), like many other researchers, notes the relationship between language and the picture of the world. He writes: "Language is component culture and its tool, this is the reality of our spirit, the face of culture; it expresses in naked form the specific features of the national mentality. Language is a mechanism that has opened the realm of consciousness to man.

Under language picture of the world understand the totality of knowledge about the world that is reflected in the language, as well as ways to obtain and interpret new knowledge.

Modern ideas about the linguistic picture of the world are set out in the works Yuri Derenik Apresyan (b. 1930). According to his scientific views, "every natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and organizing the world. The meanings expressed in it add up to a certain unified system of views, a kind of collective philosophy, which is imposed as mandatory on all native speakers.<...>On the other hand, the linguistic picture of the world is “naive” in the sense that in many essential respects it differs from the “scientific” picture. At the same time, the naive ideas reflected in the language are by no means primitive: in many cases they are no less complex and interesting than scientific.Such are, for example, ideas about inner world human, which reflect the experience of introspection of dozens of generations over many millennia and are able to serve as a reliable guide to this world.

Thus, the relationship between language and the picture of the world that develops in the mind of the individual becomes obvious. That is why many modern linguists distinguish between the concepts of "picture of the world" and "linguistic picture of the world".

Comparing the picture of the world and the linguistic picture of the world, E. S. Kubryakova noted: "The picture of the world - how a person draws the world in his imagination - is a more complex phenomenon than the linguistic picture of the world, i.e. that part of the conceptual world of a person, which has a "binding" to the language and is refracted through linguistic forms" .

A similar idea was expressed in the works of V. A. Maslova, who believes that “the term “linguistic picture of the world” is nothing more than a metaphor, because in reality specific features national language, in which the unique socio-historical experience of a certain national community of people is recorded, create for the speakers of this language not some other, unique picture of the world, different from the objectively existing one, but only a specific “color” of this world, due to the national significance of objects, phenomena, processes, a selective attitude towards them, which is born by the specifics of the activity, lifestyle and national culture of a given people.

The linguistic picture of the world is the image of consciousness - reality reflected by the means of language. The linguistic picture of the world is usually distinguished from the conceptual or cognitive models of the world, which are the basis of the linguistic embodiment, the verbal conceptualization of the totality of human knowledge about the world.

Thus, it becomes clear that the picture of the world of any individual, like the picture of the world of the whole community, is in close connection with tongue. Language is the most important way of formation and existence of human knowledge about the world. Reflecting the objective world in the process of activity, a person fixes the results of cognition in the language.

What is the difference between cultural, conceptual, value and language pictures of the world? If the cultural (conceptual) picture of the world is a reflection of the real world through the prism of concepts formed in the process of cognition of the world by a person on the basis of both collective and individual experience, then the linguistic picture of the world reflects reality through the cultural picture of the world, and language subjugates, organizes perception world by its bearers. At the same time, the cultural and linguistic pictures of the world have much in common. The cultural picture of the world is specific to each culture that arises in certain natural and social conditions that distinguish it from other cultures. The linguistic picture of the world is closely connected with culture, is in continuous interaction with it, goes back to the real world that surrounds a person.

If we compare the linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world, then the conceptual picture of the world is a system of ideas, human knowledge about the world around us, a mental reflection of the cultural experience of the nation, while the linguistic picture of the world is its verbal embodiment.

If we compare the value and language pictures of the world, then in the first equally there are universal and specific components. In the language, it is represented by value judgments adopted in accordance with national codes and well-known case statements and texts.

Researchers take a different approach to national cultural specifics of certain aspects or fragments of the picture of the world. Some take language as the initial concept, analyze the similarities or differences in the perception of the world through the prism of linguistic consistency, and in this case we are talking about the linguistic picture of the world. For other scientists, culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguocultural community are the starting points, and the image of the world is in the center of attention, which brings to the fore the concept of "cultural picture of the world". In general, both linguistic and cultural pictures of the world answer the most important worldview question about the essence of man and his place in the world. It is on the resolution of this issue that our value orientations, goals, direction of our development.