home / Business/ Linguistic and cultural characteristics of Russian and German axiological pictures of the world Elena Viktorovna Babaeva. Historical types of worldview

Linguistic and cultural characteristics of Russian and German axiological pictures of the world Elena Viktorovna Babaeva. Historical types of worldview

EXAM QUESTIONS

In the subject "Philosophy"

1. Subject, structure, functions of philosophy.

Functions of philosophy

- ideological(worldview integrator);

- methodological(introduces methods of thinking, theoretical activity)

- axiological(“axo” – value, helps a person to understand the meaning of life and determine values).

philosophy– a science that studies the most general laws of development of nature, society and knowledge. Philosophy considers the most important connections in the system " world-man»

Structure

§ ontology - the doctrine of being;

§ epistemology - the study of knowledge;

§ dialectics - the doctrine of development

§ axiology (theory of values);

§ hermeneutics (theory of understanding and interpretation of knowledge)

2. Movement, space and time as attributive characteristics of matter.

Modern ideas about space and time
Matter has a location in time and space. Regarding the location of matter in time and space, philosophers have put forward two main approaches:
substantial;
relational.
Supporters of the first - substantial (Democritus, Epicurus) - considered time and space to be a separate reality, along with matter, an independent substance, and the relationship between matter and space and time was considered intersubstantial.
Space was identified with emptiness-place, understood as an independent substance, thanks to which all phenomena and processes receive spatial characteristics. This idea played significant role in the process of the formation of classical physics. Time is also considered as an independent entity, as “duration in general,” as a condition for all possible changes. Time has its own “flow”, regardless of whether something happens or does not happen.
Proponents of the second - relational (from the Latin relatio - relationship) (Aristotle, Leibniz, Hegel) - perceived time and space as relationships formed by the interaction of material objects. The relational concept of time was based on the primacy of movement, changes in specific objects, in relation to which, depending on the nature of the changes, temporary relationships are formed. Time acts as an expression of order, the sequence of changes that occur.
Currently, the relational theory looks more reliable (based on scientific achievements), based on which:
time is a form of existence of matter that expresses the duration of existence of material objects and the sequence of changes (changes of states) of these objects in the process of their development;
space is a form of existence of matter that characterizes its extension, structure, interaction of elements within material objects and the interaction of material objects with each other.
Time and space are closely intertwined. What happens in space happens simultaneously in time, and what happens in time happens in space. Hegel, connecting space and time with movement, argued that they are valid only in the presence of movement, a change in something. And movement, according to Hegel, is the direct unity of space and time.

3. Worldview: essence, structure, functions and types.

Worldview- a system of a person’s stable views on the world and his place in it. The broad meaning is all views, the narrow meaning is objective (within the corresponding form of worldview: mythology, religion, science, etc.). The term “worldview” supposedly appeared in the 18th century and has been popular since the 19th century.

Features of a worldview: active knowledge (position-action), integrity, universality (implies the presence of one or another worldview in every person).

Subject – relationships in the system world-man.

Worldview structure– elements and connections between them. Levels of worldview structure:

Everyday-practical (“attitude”, “emotionally colored vision of the world”, “everyday worldview” of each person);

Rational-theoretical (“worldview”, “intellectual worldview”, uses concepts, categories, theories, concepts).

Structural elements: knowledge, values, ideals, action programs, beliefs(by which the authors mean not “firm principles”, but “accepted” - “knowledge and values” more or less approved by scientists), etc.

Functions of worldview: 1) axiological(value) and 2) orientational.

Historical types of worldview:

- mythological worldview (fantasies predominate, unity with nature, anthropomorphism, many supernatural forces, dominance of feelings);

- religious worldview (monotheism): psychological structure(feelings and actions of people, rituals) + ideological structure (dogmas, scriptures): the world is doubled (meaning, first of all, the Christian worlds of this and other worlds), God is spiritual, He is a creator outside the world, Holy Bible– source of knowledge, hierarchy descending from God;

- philosophical worldview (free intellectual search for truth): understanding the ultimate foundations of being and thinking, justification of values, striving for integrity, logical argument), reliance on reason.

Society and nature.

Man is a part of nature, i.e. society, as a part of nature, is inextricably linked with it.

The meaning of “nature” is used to denote not only natural, but also human-created conditions for existence. During the development of society, people’s ideas about nature and the relationship between man and nature changed:

1) Antiquity:

Philosophers interpret nature as a perfect cosmos, i.e. the opposite of chaos. Man and nature act as a single whole.

2) Middle Ages:

With the establishment of Christianity, nature is conceived as the result of God's creation. Nature occupies a lower place than man.

3) Revival:

Nature is a source of joy. The ancient ideal of harmony and perfection of nature, the unity of man with nature, is being revived.

4) New time:

Nature is an object of human experimentation. Nature is inert, man must conquer and subjugate it. The idea expressed by Bacon is strengthened: “Knowledge is power.” Nature becomes an object of technological exploitation, it loses its sacred character, and the ties between man and nature are broken. On modern stage there is a need for a new worldview that unites the best traditions of European and oriental cultures. It is necessary to understand nature as a unique integral organism. The attitude towards nature must be built from a position of cooperation.

Picture of the world and paradigm of thinking.

Paradigms are pictures of states of the world. They describe a set of beliefs, characteristics of perception, value and practical attitudes that are accepted by society and govern the activities of members of this society. A paradigm can characterize a very small community, such as a research group, or an entire culture.

“Picture of the world” is a set of ideas that has developed at a specific stage of human development about the structure of the reality surrounding a person, the ways of its functioning and development.

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Linguocultural characteristics of Russian and German axiological pictures of the world”

One of the results of the development of philological problems in the 20th century was the formation of a new scientific paradigm- linguoculturology. Despite the novelty of this discipline, the focus of its attention was on traditional issues directly related to the interaction of language and culture (V.V. Vorobyov, T.V. Evsyukova, G.V. Elizarova, V.V. Krasnykh, V.A. Maslova, V.I. Postovalova). Integrity as a distinctive property of the formed direction is expressed not only in the essence of the approach, when knowledge obtained in other scientific fields is actively used in achieving the actual linguo-culo-urological tasks. Integrativeness is also manifested in the breadth of research problems, which is determined by the versatility of the central phenomena (language and culture), the multidimensionality of their connections and explains why the solution of one problem helps to clarify many other issues.

A special place within the framework of linguistic and cultural issues is occupied by the category of value, which has repeatedly attracted the attention of linguists (N.F. Alefirenko, A.N. Baranov, V.I. Karasik, Yu.S. Stepanov, J. Dolnik). The development of issues of linguoaxiology is of primary importance for identifying and explaining the specifics of linguistic pictures of the world (Yu.D. Apresyan, T.V. Bulygina, E.V. Uryson, A.D. Shmelev, E. Ochs, E. Ok-saar) and features of the national mentality (M.K. Golovanivskaya, V.V. Kolesov, I.Yu. Markovina, O.G. Pocheptsov, Yu.A. Sorokin, T.A. Fesenko, P. Dinzelbacher, E. Werlen), provides possibilities for constructing a model of linguistic personality (V.I. Karasik, Yu.N Karaulov, E.V. Krasilnikova, K.F. Sedov), correlates with the organization of speech and non-speech influence (Yu.A. Sorokin, I.A. Sternin , E.F. Tarasov, E. Hoffmann, J. Meu), is associated with achieving the required level communicative competence and optimization of intercultural communication (D. B. Gudkov, V. V. Kabakchi,

O.A. Leontovich, S.G. Ter-Minasova, P. Lado), allows you to interpret grammatical categories (A. Vezhbitskaya, V.B. Kashkin, N.N. Boldyrev).

Despite the importance of linguaxiology, many issues have not yet been resolved. Within the framework of linguistics, the basic units of the axiological picture of the world and their essential features are not identified, there is no unambiguous definition of values, the methods of linguistic representation of values are not sufficiently illuminated, a methodology for their study has not been developed, and the advantages of a comparative analysis of axiological pictures of the world have not been shown. Previously obtained results convince us of the timeliness of raising these problems and the possibility of solving them at the present stage. The category of evaluation has been well studied in linguistics (N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, G.A. Zolotova, T.V. Markelova, N.N. Mironova, T.V. Pisanova, V.N. Telia , R. Rathmayr) and evaluative speech acts (T.V. Bulygina, A.D. Shmelev, G. Beck, W. Zillig). The most important aspects of the linguistic representation of universal categories are identified: emotions (N. A. Krasavsky, E. Yu. Myagkova, V. N. Telia, Z. E. Fomina, V. I. Shakhovsky, W. Kirschgassner, E. Thomas), time and space (E.S. Kubryakova, H.JL Shamne, E.S. Yakovleva, E. Hall), form (V.M. Toporova), behavior (L.I. Grishaeva, U. Quasthoff), gender (A .V. Kirilina). The foundations of a cognitive approach to linguistic semantics have been developed (A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, E.S. Kubryakova) and the effectiveness of using the concept as a unit of research in describing and comparing linguistic cultures has been proven (A.P. Babushkin, S.G. Vorkachev, V.I. Karasik, E.A. Pimenov, M.V. Pimenov, Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin). The prospects for a discursive approach to identifying and describing cultural values are outlined (M.L. Makarov, E.I. Sheigal, M. Fleischer, R. Keller). The conceptual and discursive paradigms are developing most actively today, and it seems that the solution to the problems of linguistic modeling of the axiological picture of the world lies at their intersection.

These provisions determine the choice of the research topic. Its relevance is determined by: 1) the determining role of values in relation to other phenomena with a cultural component, including language; 2) the close relationship of values with the most important regulators of behavior, primarily social norms, and the significance of their characteristics for the typology of linguistic cultures; 3) insufficient development of the theoretical basis of comparative linguaxiology.

The object of the undertaken research is the value-normative side of the picture of the world, presented in the minds of native speakers of Russian and German languages. The subject of study is its linguistic and cultural characteristics, enshrined in the semantics of linguistic units and expressed in communication.

The study is based on the following hypothesis: general and specific characteristics of axiological pictures of the world are expressed in language and can be established by combining discursive and conceptual approaches to the analysis of cultural values and social norms.

The main goal of the work is to substantiate the discursive-conceptological model of cultural values and social norms as the basis for a comprehensive comparative linguocultural study of axiological pictures of the world.

Achieving the goal involves solving the following tasks:

1) identify the constitutive features of value as the basic unit of the axiological picture of the world and determine their relevance for linguistic and cultural research;

2) identify linguistic means of expressing value and develop an adequate research methodology for studying the axiological picture of the world;

3) substantiate the relevance of the structural interpretation of discourse for identifying the linguocultural characteristics of the axiological picture of the world;

4) develop parameters for the sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic measurement of values presented in discourse;

5) establish the specificity of the discursive characteristics of values in Russian and German linguistic cultures;

6) compare the linguistic-conceptological characteristics associated with the category of norm and the elements of its structure in Russian and German linguistic cultures;

7) identify the normative and behavioral characteristics of linguocultural concepts using the example of attitudes towards property.

To solve the problems, general scientific methods were used - observation, introspection, comparison, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, modeling, as well as particular linguistic methods: 1) component analysis, 2) contextual analysis, 3) interpretive analysis, 4) etymological analysis.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in the development of theoretical and methodological foundations of comparative linguaxiology. The work is the first to highlight the essential features of the basic units of the axiological picture of the world, to identify methods of their verbalization, to substantiate the principles and methods of the linguocultural study of values and norms, and to propose a multidimensional discursive-conceptological model of the axiological picture of the world.

The theoretical significance of the dissertation lies in the further development of an integrative approach to the description and comparison of linguistic cultures. The results obtained can serve as the basis for studying the concept spheres of national languages, for characterizing sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic varieties of communication, and for constructing a new typology of discourse. The proposed research methodology can be used in the study of other universal categories of the worldview, both in synchrony and diachrony.

The practical value of the study is that its results can be used in the practice of university teaching of such theoretical disciplines as linguoculturology, comparative lexicology, theory and practice of translation, and intercultural communication. The theoretical conclusions and practical material presented in the dissertation can be used in the compilation of lexicographic reference books and dictionaries.

The theoretical basis of the study was:

Statement on the relationship between culture and values (Yu.V. Bromley, I.L. Weisgerber, A. Vezhbitskaya, W. von Humboldt, M.S. Kagan, A.F. Losev, Yu.M. Lotman, E.S. Markaryan, A.A. Potebnya, P.A. Sorokin, Yu.A. Sorokin, K. Bayer, E. Hall, D. Hymes, E. Oksaar, U. Quasthoff, S. Sager);

Concepts by S.A. Askoldova, A.P. Babushkina, S.G Vorkacheva, V.I. Karasika, V.V. Kolesova, D.S. Likhacheva, Z.D. Popova, Yu.S. Stepanova, I.A. Sternin on the essence, structure, functions of the concept and its relationship with linguistic units;

Theories of discourse analysis (N.D. Arutyunova, R. Vodak, T.A. van Dijk, V.Z. Demyankov, K.A. Dolinin, V.I. Karasik, N. Luman, M.L. Makarov, N. N. Mironova, K. F. Sedov, M. Foucault, J. Habermas, E. I. Sheigal, M. Fleischer, R. Keller, N. Kusse).

The research material was based on data from a continuous sample of Russian and German dictionaries, paremiological reference books, journalistic texts presented in the press of Russia and Germany, as well as publications on the Internet. The number of analysis units was 2,500 language units and 7,500 text examples in Russian and German.

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. The basic units of the axiological picture of the world are values considered as goals human activity, and norms interpreted as rules social behavior, which are determined by values.

2. Values and norms find direct or indirect expression in the semantics of linguistic units and the communicative activities of representatives of the cultural and linguistic community. The identification of linguocultural characteristics of the axiological picture of the world should be based on the principles of complexity, multidimensionality, verbal-conceptological representativeness and intercultural comparison.

3. Identification of general and specific linguocultural characteristics of the value-normative picture of the world should be based on a combination of discursive and conceptual approaches. Discourse analysis socially determined type of connection between value content and regularly reproduced and relatively stable (in terms of their goals, participants, chronotope) communicative situations is focused on establishing the structural characteristics of the axiological picture of the world. The set of conceptual characteristics allows us to reveal its content.

4. Values and norms can act as a genre-forming parameter of communication and should be taken into account in the sociolinguistic typology of discourse. This approach distinguishes genres of discourse focused on the category of norm, and types of discourse focused on the category of supernorm. The parameters of the pragmalinguistic dimension of the axiological picture of the world are taboo, ritualization, irony and criticism.

5. Establishing the conceptual characteristics of the axiological picture of the world includes the analysis of 1) the concept of a norm, 2) concepts reflecting elements of the structure of a social norm, 3) the normative-behavioral component of linguocultural concepts. Differences are found in the composition and combinatorics of the conceptual and content features of these concepts, their dynamics, the totality of violations of social norms and the degree of their distribution, as well as the variable attitude of representatives of linguistic culture to compliance with norms and deviation from normative behavior.

6. The specificity of the linguocultural characteristics of the Russian and German axiological pictures of the world was discovered: a) in the degree of manifestation of personality characteristics, intra-genre variability and genre combinatorics; in German linguistic culture in institutional types of communication they are expressed more intensely; b) the degree of stability of values and norms, which manifests itself in pragmalinguistic varieties of communication; a higher degree of ritualization and tabooing of communication in German mass media discourse, the closedness of a number of spheres to ironic and critical representation in German society indicate greater stability of the German axiological picture of the world compared to the Russian one; c) in the genetic foundations of one of the basic concepts of the axiological picture of the world; the concept of norm in diachronic terms in German linguistic culture reveals more close connection with the concept of time, in Russian linguistic culture - with the concept of space; d) in the predominant orientation of value-significant behavior towards external and formal norms (grounds, sanctions), which occurs in German linguistic culture, or towards their subjective interpretation, which is typical for representatives of Russian linguistic culture; e) in the specific position of the concept of relation to property in the Russian and German axiological pictures of the world; property is recognized more important value in the German picture of the world, which determines greater support for individual efforts aimed at increasing and preserving it in German linguistic culture.

Approbation. 45 papers have been published on the research topic. The main results are presented in two monographs, textbook, articles and reports on scientific conferences: international (“Man, culture, civilization at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd millennia.” - Volgograd, 2000; “Language and intercultural communications.” - Ufa, 2002; “Language in space and time.” - Samara, 2002; “Problems of modern language education." - Vladimir, 2003; "Modern political linguistics." - Yekaterinburg, 2003; "Languages of professional communication." - Chelyabinsk, 2003; "Problems of verbalization of concepts in the semantics of language and text." - Volgograd, 2003); All-Russian (“Language and Thinking: Psychological and linguistic aspects" - Penza, 2002, 2003; "Theory and typology of grammatical systems." -Izhevsk, 2003; "Language education and language education." - Velikiy Novgorod, 2003); interuniversity and university (“Functioning of linguistic units in different speech spheres: factors, trends, models.” - Volgograd, 1995; “Linguistic personality: current problems of linguistics.” - Volgograd, 1996; “Linguistic personality: problems of denotation and understanding.” - Volgograd, 1997; “Linguistic personality: system, norms, style.” - Volgograd, 1998; “Linguistic personality: genre speech activity" - Volgograd, 1998; "Linguistic/psycholinguistic problems in second language acquisition." -Perm, 2003; " Contemporary issues interaction of languages and cultures.” -Blagoveshchensk, 2003; "Axiological linguistics: problems of communicative behavior." - Volgograd, 2003). The results of the study were discussed at a meeting of the Department of English Philology of the Volgograd State University pedagogical university.2007, Candidate of Philological Sciences Kalyuzhnaya, Irina Anatolyevna

Semantic and semantic structure of the concept “OK” in various linguistic cultures 2006, Candidate of Philological Sciences Gadzhiyan, Gayane Aleksandrovna

Comparative and comparative linguocultural study of the concept of “hospitality”: on paremiological material of the Russian and French languages 2011, Candidate of Philological Sciences Zakharova, Tatyana Vladimirovna

Please note the above scientific texts posted for information purposes and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. IN PDF files There are no such errors in the dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Introduction

Chapter I. Theoretical and methodological foundations of comparative linguaxiology 13

1. Values in cultural studies and parameters for their comparison 13

2. Definition and main forms of representation of cultural values 37

3. Systems of normative regulation of behavior and their connection with language 60

4. Principles and methods of linguistic and cultural study of values and norms 98

Chapter 1 Conclusions 129

Chapter II. Discursive characteristics of cultural values and norms 131

1. The essence of discourse and its significance for the axiological analysis of culture 131

2. Discursive dimension of values: sociolinguistic aspect 145

2. 1. Norm-oriented discourse 145

2. 1. 1. Political discourse: linguistic and cultural analysis of the texts of party programs 145

2. 1.2. Pedagogical discourse: rules of student behavior as a research object 161

2.2. Discourse oriented towards the supernorm 179

2. 2. 2. Horoscope texts and magical discourse 192

3 3. Discursive dimension of values: pragmalinguistic aspect 210

3.1. Taboo 210

3. 2. Ritualization 225

3. 3. Irony and comic discourse 240

3. 4. Critical discourse 253

Conclusions on Chapter II 268

Chapter III. Conceptological characteristics of social norms in Russian and German linguistic cultures 270

1. The concept of norm in linguistic research 270

2. Social norm as a linguocultural concept 281

2. 1. Lexical nomination of the concept of norm in Russian and German languages 281

2. 2. Etymological analysis of words with the meaning “norm” in Russian and German languages 295

3. Linguistic and cultural concepts reflecting the structure of social norms 306

3.1. Concepts reflecting the basis of a social norm 307

3. 2. Concepts reflecting sanctions 327

3.3. A comprehensive reflection of the structure of social norms 345

4. Normative and behavioral characteristics of linguistic and cultural concepts (using the example of attitudes towards property) 354

Conclusions on Chapter III 3 69

Conclusion 371

References 376

List of lexicographic sources and abbreviations 420

Applications 427

Introduction to the work

One of the results of the development of philological problems in the 20th century was the formation of a new scientific paradigm - linguoculturology. Despite the novelty of this discipline, the focus of its attention was on traditional issues directly related to the interaction of language and culture (V.V. Vorobyov, T.V. Evsyukova, G.V. Elizarova, V.V. Krasnykh, V.A. Maslova, V.I. Postovalova). Integrity as a distinctive property of the formed direction is expressed not only in the essence of the approach, when knowledge obtained in other scientific fields is actively used in achieving the actual linguocultural tasks. Integrativeness is also manifested in the breadth of research problems, which is determined by the versatility of the central phenomena (language and culture), the multidimensionality of their connections and explains why the solution of one problem helps to clarify many other issues.

A special place within the framework of linguistic and cultural issues is occupied by the category of value, which has repeatedly attracted the attention of linguists (N.F. Alefirenko, A.N. Baranov, V.I. Karasik, Yu.S. Stepanov, J. Dolnik). The development of issues of linguoaxiology is of primary importance for identifying and explaining the specifics of linguistic pictures of the world (Yu.D. Apresyan, T.V. Bulygina, E.V. Uryson, A.D. Shmelev, E. Ochs, E. Ok-saar) and features of the national mentality (M.K. Golovanivskaya, V.V. Kolesov, I.Yu. Markovina, O.G. Pocheptsov, Yu.A. Sorokin, T.A. Fesenko, P. Dinzelbacher, E. Werlen), provides possibilities for constructing a model of linguistic personality (V.I. Karasik, Yu.N Karaulov, E.V. Krasilnikova, K.F. Sedov), correlates with the organization of speech and non-speech influence (Yu.A. Sorokin, I.A. Sternin , E.F. Tarasov, E. Hoffmann, J. Meu), is associated with achieving the required level of communicative competence and optimization of intercultural communication (D. B. Gudkov, V. V. Kabakchi, O. A. Leontovich, S. G. Ter-Minasova , P. Lado), allows you to interpret grammatical categories (A. Vezhbitskaya, V.B. Kashkin, N.N. Boldyrev).

Despite the importance of linguaxiology, many issues have not yet been resolved. Within the framework of linguistics, the basic units of the axiological picture of the world and their essential features are not identified, there is no unambiguous definition of values, the methods of linguistic representation of values are not sufficiently illuminated, a methodology for their study has not been developed, and the advantages of a comparative analysis of axiological pictures of the world have not been shown. Previously obtained results convince us of the timeliness of raising these problems and the possibility of solving them at the present stage. The category of evaluation has been well studied in linguistics (N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, G.A. Zolotova, T.V. Markelova, N.N. Mironova, T.V. Pisanova, V.N. Telia , R. Rathmayr) and evaluative speech acts (T.V. Bulygina, A.D. Shmelev, G. Beck, W. Zillig). The most important aspects of the linguistic representation of universal categories are identified: emotions (N. A. Krasavsky, E. Yu. Myagkova, V. N. Telia, Z. E. Fomina, V. I. Shakhovsky, W. Kirschgassner, E. Thomas), time and space (E.S. Kubryakova, N.L. Shamne, E.S. Yakovleva, E. Hall), form (V.M. Toporova), behavior (L.I. Grishaeva, U. Quasthoff), tender ( A.V. Kirilina). The foundations of a cognitive approach to linguistic semantics have been developed (A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, E.S. Kubryakova) and the effectiveness of using the concept as a unit of research in describing and comparing linguistic cultures has been proven (A.P. Babushkin, S.G. Vorkachev, V.I. Karasik, E.A. Pimenov, M.V. Pimenov, Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin). The prospects for a discursive approach to identifying and describing cultural values are outlined (M.L. Makarov, E.I. Sheigal, M. Fleischer, R. Keller). The conceptual and discursive paradigms are developing most actively today, and it seems that the solution to the problems of linguistic modeling of the axiological picture of the world lies at their intersection.

Achieving the goal involves solving the following tasks:

1) identify the constitutive features of value as the basic unit of the axiological picture of the world and determine their relevance for linguistic and cultural research;

2) identify linguistic means of expressing value and develop an adequate research methodology for studying the axiological picture of the world;

3) substantiate the relevance of the structural interpretation of discourse for identifying the linguocultural characteristics of the axiological picture of the world;

4) develop parameters for the sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic measurement of values presented in discourse;

5) establish the specificity of the discursive characteristics of values in Russian and German linguistic cultures;

6) compare the linguistic-conceptological characteristics associated with the category of norm and the elements of its structure in Russian and German linguistic cultures;

7) identify the normative and behavioral characteristics of linguocultural concepts using the example of attitudes towards property.

The theoretical basis of the study was:

Statement on the relationship between culture and values (Y.V. Bromley, J.L. Weisgerber, A. Vezhbitskaya, W. von Humboldt, M.S. Kagan, A.F. Losev, Yu.M. Lotman, E.S. Markaryan, A.A. Potebnya, P.A. Sorokin, Yu.A. Sorokin, K. Bayer, E. Hall, D. Hymes, E. Oksaar, U. Quasthoff, S. Sager);

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. The basic units of the axiological picture of the world are values, considered as the goals of human activity, and norms, interpreted as rules of social behavior that are determined by values.

3. Identification of general and specific linguocultural characteristics of the value-normative picture of the world should be based on a combination of discursive and conceptual approaches. Discourse analysis of a socially determined type of connection between value content and regularly reproduced and relatively stable (in terms of their goals, participants, chronotope) communicative situations is focused on establishing the structural characteristics of the axiological picture of the world. The set of conceptual characteristics allows us to reveal its content.

6. The specificity of the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the Russian and German axiological pictures of the world has been discovered:

a) in the degree of manifestation of personality characteristics, intra-genre variability and genre combinatorics; in German linguistic culture in institutional types of communication they are expressed more intensely;

b) the degree of stability of values and norms, which manifests itself in pragmalinguistic varieties of communication; a higher degree of ritualization and tabooing of communication in German mass media discourse, the closeness of a number of spheres to ironic and critical representation in German society indicate greater stability of the German axiological picture of the world compared to the Russian one;

c) in the genetic foundations of one of the basic concepts of the axiological picture of the world; the concept of norm in diachronic terms in German linguistic culture reveals a closer connection with the concept of time, in Russian linguistic culture - with the concept of space;

d) in the predominant orientation of value-significant behavior towards external and formal norms (grounds, sanctions), which occurs in German linguistic culture, or towards their subjective interpretation, which is typical for representatives of Russian linguistic culture;

e) in the specific position of the concept of relation to property in the Russian and German axiological pictures of the world; property is recognized as a more important value in the German picture of the world, which determines

greater support for individual efforts aimed at increasing and preserving it in German linguistic culture.

Approbation. 45 papers have been published on the research topic. The main results are presented in two monographs, a textbook, articles and reports at scientific conferences: international (“Man, culture, civilization at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd millennia.” - Volgograd, 2000; “Language and intercultural communications.” - Ufa, 2002; "Language in space and time." - Samara, 2002; "Problems of modern language education." - Vladimir, 2003; "Modern political linguistics." - Yekaterinburg, 2003; "Languages of professional communication." - Chelyabinsk, 2003; "Problems of verbalization concepts in the semantics of language and text." - Volgograd, 2003); All-Russian (“Language and Thinking: Psychological and Linguistic Aspects.” - Penza, 2002, 2003; “Theory and Typology of Grammatical Systems.” - Izhevsk, 2003; “Language of Education and Language Education.” - Veliky Novgorod, 2003); interuniversity and university (“Functioning of linguistic units in different speech spheres: factors, trends, models.” - Volgograd, 1995; “Linguistic personality: current problems of linguistics.” - Volgograd, 1996; “Linguistic personality: problems of denotation and understanding.” - Volgograd, 1997; "Linguistic personality: system, norms, style." - Volgograd, 1998; "Linguistic personality: genre speech activity." - Volgograd, 1998; "Linguistic / psycholinguistic problems of second language acquisition." - Perm, 2003; " Modern problems of interaction of languages and cultures." - Blagoveshchensk, 2003; "Axiological linguistics: problems of communicative behavior." - Volgograd, 2003). The results of the study were discussed at a meeting of the Department of English Philology of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University.

Structure of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references, a list of lexicographic sources and an appendix.

The introduction substantiates the relevance of the research topic, defines the object and subject of study, formulates the hypothesis, purpose and objectives of the study, demonstrates the scientific novelty, theoretical significance and practical value of the work, shows the material and methods of the study, and formulates the provisions submitted for defense.

Chapter I - “Theoretical and methodological foundations of comparative linguoaxiology” - shows the importance of the category of value for cultural comparative studies, identifies the characteristic features of the axiological picture of the world and its basic units, determines their connections with language and behavior, establishes the principles and methods of linguocultural study values and norms.

Chapter II - “Discourse characteristics of cultural values and norms” - reveals the essence of the structural interpretation of discourse, shows its significance for linguaxiological modeling, and establishes the parameters of sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic analysis of discourse relevant for characterizing the value-normative system.

Chapter III - “Conceptological characteristics of social norms in Russian and German linguocultures” - analyzes the concept of norms and concepts correlated with the concepts of the basis and sanction of normative behavior, considers the possibility of a comprehensive reflection of the structure of a social norm, identifies normative behavioral characteristics of linguocultural concepts using the example of attitudes towards property.

In conclusion, the results of the research performed are summed up and prospects for further work are outlined.

Values in cultural studies and parameters for their comparison

Many people refer to the term “culture” scientific disciplines. It is one of not only the most frequently used, but also extremely diversely interpreted (Bromley, 1983; Gachev, 1988; Gurevich, 1984; Cole, Scribner, 1977; Losev, 1991; Lotman, 1992; Markaryan, 1969; Tylor, 1989; Bayer, 1994; Der grosse Herder, 1953; Hannerz, 1995; Hudson, 1991; Lado, 1995; Liatowitsch, www; Ochs, 1993; Oksaar, 1988). Therefore, it is necessary to point out aspects of the consideration of cultural phenomena that are relevant to this study.

At the moment, the volume of material on the issues under discussion has reached a level where there is no need to propose a new definition of culture, and it is necessary to compare not individual definitions, but their classifications (Gudkov, 2003; Maslova, 2001; Matsumoto, 2002). In our opinion, the typology of V.A.’s cultural concepts is successful. Maslova (2001, pp. 13-16), which allows us to fully reflect the diversity of research interest in the designated area and the attention of scientists to different facets of culture. Choosing it as a base one, we note that within the framework of our study highest value have a value approach, “in which culture is interpreted as a set of spiritual and material values created by people,” and a normative approach, “in line with which culture is a set of norms and rules that regulate people’s lives” (Maslova, 2001, p. 14). In the context of cultural-comparative research, the study of values takes on particular importance. Value is recognized as the fundamental principle of culture (P.A. Sorokin), and the originality of value systems is a determining factor in the differences between cultures (E.S. Markaryan, Yu.V. Bromley, Yu.M. Lotman). Cultural values ensure the identity of acting subjects (Yu. Habermas), act as a basic category in the formation of a picture of the world (Yu.N. Karaulov), and represent the most important goals individual activities and social development (S. Schwartz).

Values are closely related to social norms, which are the most important form of their representation (Drobnitsky, 1974; Durkheim, 1966; Kluckhohn, 1998; Smelser, 1994; Sorokin P.A., 1992; Dahrendorf, 1970; Parsons, 1977; Popitz, 1980; Sander, 1930; Schaefer, 1989; Vander Zanden, 1990; Vierkandt, 1923). Values and norms share a regulatory role in the life of society. Values realize a number of their functions directly through social norms, which allows us to talk about the functional proximity of the two phenomena. Thus, the representative function of values, which consists in expressing and designating a person’s attitude towards objects and phenomena of reality, as well as their significance for a person (Nenovski, 1987, p. 28), determines the categorical condemnation and approval by society of behavioral models. The orienting function of values is specified in the rules of behavior in individual situations. We emphasize that the work examines that part of social norms that contain a behavioral component. Specific social norms - a model of behavior in a certain socially significant situation - are understood as cultural units, that is, one of the simplest elements of the cultural process, carrying some meaning or image of culture, fixed ordinary consciousness and one way or another transmitting cultural content (ESK, 1997, p. 220).

These factors suggest that the integration of value and normative approaches is not only acceptable, but will also be quite effective in solving problems related to the linguocultural description of the axiological picture of the world. In our opinion, such an approach corresponds to the concepts of domestic philosophers and cultural scientists (Yu.V. Bromley, A.F. Losev, Yu.M. Lotman, E.S. Markaryan, A.A. Potebnya, P.A. Sorokin) and is reflected in the study linguistic phenomena(N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, V.N. Telia, J. Dolnik, R. Rathmayr). Let us emphasize that the normative-value concept of culture does not contradict other approaches (descriptive, informational, symbolic) and does not exclude them. This is one of the possible aspects of the analysis.

Let us consider some normative value models of culture, choosing those that are of paramount importance for comparative research. For the most part, these are works of foreign authors, which are not yet sufficiently taken into account by linguoculturology.

The most famous are the anthropological concepts of culture and, in particular, its metaphorical definition as a “mirror for man.” Its author, K. Kluckhohn, writes: “Culture is a way of thinking, feeling, believing. It is the knowledge of a group, preserved (in people's memories, in books and objects) for future use” (Kluckhohn, 1998, p. 44). The study of culture is possible thanks to the results of human mental activity, to which K. Kluckhohn includes behavior, speech, gestures, actions of people, tools, houses, agricultural land. L. White offers a more structured description of such results, referring to specific areas. In his opinion, “the objects and phenomena that make up culture are located in time and space 1) in the human body (ideas, beliefs, emotions, relationships); 2) in the processes of social interaction between people; 3) in material objects (axes, factories, clay vessels) located outside the human body, but within the framework of patterns of social interaction between people” (White, 1997, pp. 27-28). S. Dahl identifies the following differential features that determine the 16 differences between one culture and another: national character / basic personality characteristics (the national character I basic personality), perception, understanding of time, understanding of space, thinking, language, non-verbal communication, values, social groups and relationships (Dahl, www).

Definition and main forms of representation of cultural values

Appeal to axiology, in which value acts as a basic category, does not reveal its unambiguous definition. For this reason, doubts arise about the capabilities of linguistics, which turns to the study of an object from the sphere of “alien” interests, claiming to obtain new data. In philosophy, there is a widespread opinion about the absence of linguistic expression of values, which are understood as non-verbalizable, “atomic” components of the deepest layer of the intentional structure of a person (NFE, 2001, Vol. IV, p. 320). This position is supported by linguo-culturologists. So, S.G. Vorkachev writes: “The value dimension, for all its importance for identifying cultural dominants in a language, is unlikely to provide material for linguistic research proper, since it does not have specific means of expression analyzed and is not universal” (Vorkachev, 2002, p. 6).

Let us conduct our own analysis of the existing definitions of value and try to propose a definition relevant for the linguocultural modeling of the axiological picture of the world. We will assume that definition is a conceptual mechanism for controlling the functions of words (Kafanya, 1997, p. 96).

Familiarity with the definitions shows that they suffer either from excessive complexity (like the above example from NFE) or from simplification. In the latter case, value, for example, is understood as something that people’s feelings dictate to recognize as superior to everything and which can be treated with respect, recognition, and reverence (FES 2, 1999, p. 507). An overly broad approach is proposed, interpreting value as any phenomenon that is significant for the existence of a subject (ESK, 1997, p. 18), or a one-sided consideration, for example, from the position of a social system (Parsons, 1977). The current situation is explained by the abstractness of value. With this concept, generalization is made at a very high level; value is difficult to subsume under a broader category. Therefore, we develop a definition through: 1) indicating categories close to the one being analyzed; 2) highlighting the main differences between value and related concepts; 3) identification of the main functions of values in individual and social activities. This allows us to outline the range of cultural phenomena that have general properties with the category of value and specify its content.

Values are inaccessible to direct observation; to explain them, they resort to single-order or more specific phenomena. In the humanities, values are proposed to be understood as norms, ideals, ideas, goals, attitudes, principles, beliefs, convictions, guidelines, expectations, needs, ideas, standards. We will consider in detail two concepts that present fundamental provisions for the development of axiology (Rokeach, 1968), and the essence of values is revealed quite fully (Reichardt, 1979).

M. Rokeach likens value to attitude. Unlike an attitude, a value has an imperative character, and does not just indicate preference. Values are recognized as a type of belief that determines proper/improper behavior and the end-state of existence that is or is not worth achieving. In M. Rokeach, values are presented as positive or negative abstract ideals, not tied to a specific object or situation, representing individual beliefs regarding ideal behavioral models and imaginary ultimate goals (Rokeach, 1968, p. 124). Value is understood as a standard used to influence other people's beliefs and behavior; “a standard or criterion for guiding action, for developing and maintaining attitudes toward relevant objects and situations, for justifying one’s own and others’ actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others, and for comparing self with others” (Rokeach, 1968, p. 160). (A standard or criterion that guides activity, which is necessary for the development and maintenance of a certain position in relation to relevant objects and situations, to justify certain of our actions and deeds, to make assessments of ourselves and others, to compare ourselves with others. - Our translation. - E.B.).

Our attention to R. Reichardt’s definition is explained by the fact that on its basis an interesting classification of value differences is proposed (section 1 in this chapter). The researcher writes: “Unter einem Wert verstehen wir einen in einer bestimmten Population wirksamen Modus der Bevorzugung oder der Zurucksetzung von Objekten oder von sozialen Zustanden, der in der Motivaionsstruktur der Einzelindividuen verankert werden kann, dessen Inhalt einen hohen Grad von Allgemein heit (Generalisierung) aufweist und mindestens poteniell auch bei einer grosseren Population wirksam werden konnte" (Reichardt, 1979, S. 24). (By value we mean a mode of preference or disdain for objects and social states that is valid for a certain population, which can be fixed in the motivational structure of individual individuals, the content of which reveals a high degree of generalization, and it could become effective, at least potentially , within any larger population. - Our translation. - E. B.). The researcher identifies independent elements of the definition, which, in our opinion, are of paramount importance for understanding the essence of the value-normative system.

Firstly, the effect of values is projected onto society, within which different associations of people are found, determined by their party affiliation, age, and religion. Within society, various, including opposing, values coexist. Secondly, values establish a sequence of priorities, which in the motivational structure of an individual ranges from intense aspiration to categorical refusal. This allows us to talk about the existence of a value system as a kind of hierarchy of individual units.

Thirdly, by social states we mean the fact that different types activities are implemented or not implemented (for example, tabooing) with a certain regularity.

Fourthly, the effectiveness of values is manifested through fixation by the motivational structures of the individual (Nur was einer solchen psychischen Verankerung fahig ist, kann zum Wert werden). This allows us to identify the boundaries of the existence of values and explains their mobility.

Fifthly, the convergence of the concepts of value and preference allows us to combine many heterogeneous actions and describe them through imperatives.

Sixth, values exhibit cognitive, emotive, and conative characteristics that support each other.

Systems of normative regulation of behavior and their connection with language

Human behavior is recognized as the main form of manifestation of cultural values (Alekseev, Krylov, 2001). An analysis of the definitions of a social norm showed that behavior is also a generic concept for it. These points, as well as the desire to identify not only nuclear, but also peripheral units of the axiological picture of the world, to determine their relationship with language, explain the course of further reasoning.

The external side of activity, which can be observed and expresses interaction with the outside world, is considered by the humanities as behavior. “Behavior is externally manifested patterns and stereotypes of actions, acquired by an individual either on the basis of the experience of his own activities (conscious skills), or as a result of imitation of well-known or other people’s patterns and stereotypes of actions (unconscious and little-conscious skills)” (Dridze, 1980, p. 25 ). Behavior consists of individual actions aimed at maintaining the existence of the organism, realizing its functions, satisfying needs, achieving goals, and embodying moral principles. Actions and deeds are not carried out separately, they are connected with each other, formalized and ordered, subject to the influence of internal and external factors. Models of behavior are determined by human biological properties and sociocultural mechanisms (Sadokhin, Grushevitskaya, 2000, p. 194). The development of a mechanism for social regulation of human behavior occurs in accordance with trends towards unification and typification. Society, caring about its integrity and unity, develops a whole system of social codes (programs) of behavior prescribed to its members (Baiburin, 1985, p. 7). Special regulators of activity in the form of values and norms distinguish human activity from the activity of animals (Smirnov, 2001, p. 46).

The specificity of socio-normative regulation of human behavior is determined by many factors. Different social groups express in their behavior in different ways such attributes as age, gender, area of origin and residence, and class status. The influence of these simple qualities is mediated and concretized by the complex distinctive cultural configuration of accepted patterns of behavior (Goffman, 2000, p. PO). There are different areas to which the regulatory mechanism applies. Some fragments of behavior remain unregulated because they are not regarded as socially significant. Each ethnic culture is characterized by its own ideas about the significance of certain fragments of behavior and, consequently, its own configuration of the boundary between obligatory (typical) and free (individual) behavior (Baiburin, 1985, pp. 7-8). The selection of situations for the role of socially significant, forms of regulation and control are directly related to the type and structure of society, with ideas about the value of the object. Thus, among the peoples of Siberia, behavior in the sphere of preparation and consumption of food is regulated to the highest degree (Khristoforova, 1998, p. 24).

Categories of value and norms have much in common with the category of evaluation. In philosophical and sociological research These concepts are not always differentiated, and we talk about value-normative, normative-evaluative, value-evaluative relations, functions and components, for example: “The diverse functions of the human psyche and language can be reduced to two main ones (albeit intersecting, but not coinciding) : normative-value and cognitive” (Maksimov, 2000, p. 25). Sometimes the lack of such a distinction is quite justified. On the one hand, any value presupposes a norm for its implementation or rejection. On the other hand, any norm is a positive or negative value (Sorokin P.A., 1992, p. 200). Moreover, it is believed that in some cases social value acquires the quality of a social norm, in particular when they are “organically connected with the existing culture of society, with its social system and serve as a measure of assessment of certain objects (phenomena)” (ESK, 1997, p. 427). At the same time, norm, value and evaluation differ in a number of ways, which are important to point out in the context of our study.

Analysis of functions reveals additional differences between values and norms, and also allows us to show in more detail the specifics already mentioned above. Value aspects play a leading role in the structure of human activity, acting as the initiator of the subject’s activity (Korshunov, 1977, p. 57). One of the main functions of values is stimulating. Social norms rarely act as incentives for activity, but they are directly related to its ordering and organization. Norms are recognized as social shapers of activity (Smirnov, 2001, p. 34). Playing an orientation role, values determine the upper limit of the level of social aspirations of an individual, and norms determine the average “optimum” that cannot be violated. This specificity is noted in linguistics. N.D. Arutyunova points out the difference between qualifying an action as good or correct: “the concept of a right action presupposes its feasibility, while the concept of a good action, associated with the idea of an ideal, also extends to what people strive for, but which they cannot always achieve achieve” (Arutyunova, 1999, p. 156).

The most significant difference between a social norm and a value is its “mandatory nature” (ESK, 1997, p. 286). The sign of imperativeness is expressed in the fact that “personal behavior that goes against the norm necessarily causes a negative reaction from society and its social institutions” (Penkov, 1990, p. 74). Norms determine activity more strictly than values. “The individual must comply with the instructions and prohibitions contained in all social norms in force in a given situation. On the contrary, value regulation confronts him with the problem of choosing one or another goal, an option of behavior” (Nemirovsky, 1989, p. 104). Social values act as general principles, without differentiating in specific requirements, assessments and means of social control over behavior. They are more autonomous and depend on the internal state of a person. The norm “is associated with the direct, immediate impact of society and its social institutions on human behavior” (Penkov, 1990, p. 74). It is characterized by mass acceptance and sustainable repeatability. The norm has no gradations: it is either followed or not. Values differ in intensity and are characterized by greater or lesser intensity 64

the penalty of urgency (Leontyev D.A., 1996, p. 21). This explains that the intensity of behavioral reactions (shyness, cunning, stinginess) is not scaled (Rakhilina, 2000, p. 146).

The condition for the effectiveness of social norms is their validity from the point of view of accepted values in society. In relation to them, norms perform a subordinate, instrumental function (FES 1, 1983, p. 442). “A necessary prerequisite for a deontological judgment is the conviction that the approved norm of behavior is the only correct one” (Arutyunova, 1999, p. 153). With regard to values, there is no need for such justification.

Principles and methods of linguistic and cultural study of values and norms

Science has examined various possibilities for studying values. They are based on the fact that the content of values is consciously or unconsciously manifested through what a person says and does (Rokeach, 1968, p. 124; Hayakawa, 1967; Vossenkuhl, 1979). R. Hudson names the following methods that can be used in cultural anthropology and linguistics: “Firstly, we can observe people's natural behavior... . Secondly, we can arrange interviews and ask people more or less direct questions about their knowledge... . Thirdly, we can use ourselves as informants. And fourthly we can conduct psychological experiments of one kind or another” (Hudson, 1991, p. 74). (Firstly, we can observe people's natural behavior... Secondly, we can conduct interviews and ask people more or less openly about what they know... Thirdly, we can use ourselves in as informants. And, fourthly, we can carry out some kind of psychological experiments. - Our translation. - E.B.).

All methods can be divided into indirect and direct. IN Everyday life values are rarely the object of reflection, therefore indirect methods, which include observation of human behavior, answers to thematically selected questions, analysis of products cultural activities(literature, films, folklore) are addressed more often. Their disadvantage is the need for subsequent interpretation by the researcher, which is inevitably associated with a certain subjectivity when interpreting the data obtained.

Direct measurement of values is possible through the analysis of questions, interviews or essays in which value meanings are formulated explicitly. The use of direct methods is justified by M. Rokeach (Rokeach, 1968). In his research, he focused on the values that people consciously refer to when making decisions or justifying the refusal of some actions in favor of others. The subjects were asked to rank values in order of importance; factor analysis was used for further processing of the lists. Most sociologists today work with structured questionnaires, presenting a list of values that express generalized goal orientations in the form of individual words or short sentences, and asking people to indicate their importance on a rating scale. Next, average indicators for crops are displayed and compared. Most scientists see the main problem that arises when using such a technique in the fact that representatives of socio-cultural communities with one name can associate different value meanings. The correspondence of linguistic units does not mean the correspondence of the content behind them, and turning to linguistic analysis becomes extremely necessary.

For this reason, the search for scientific concepts that make it possible to successfully combine the capabilities of linguistics with the achievements of other humanities disciplines has become a natural result of the development of axiological problems. Such a paradigm as linguoculturology opens up great prospects in resolving the issue of modeling the value system of society. Its interpretation as a science about the relationship between language and culture indicates the subject of study and formulates the main principle of the research being conducted. Linguocultural consideration of objects proceeds from the unity of language and culture, the connecting link for which is the category of value. The new discipline, whose distinctive feature is integrativity, provides a basis for studying a number of multidimensional and contradictory socio-cultural phenomena that could not be fully characterized within the framework of a separate approach (anthropological, ethnographic, sociological, legal). These include the categories of cultural value and social norm.

The formation of linguoculturology was a natural result of the development of the problem of the relationship between language and culture. The questions posed in the works of W. von Humboldt and actively discussed over a number of decades, in the 90s of the 20th century became the object of analysis within the framework of an independent discipline. This was preceded and facilitated both by the accumulation of a sufficient amount of knowledge in the humanities and by a change in priorities in linguistics itself. According to O.A. Radchenko, the development of linguistics in the 20th century should be called “the history of the return to Humboldt” (Radchenko, 2001, p. 108). Humboldt's ideas became closer to researchers who became convinced of the fruitfulness of the view of language as a component of culture, and of the fact that many cultural phenomena, primarily value-laden semantic formations, simply cannot be described by ignoring language.

In the second half of the 20th century, the status of the cultural sciences, their structure and internal logic changed. This process has the greatest impact on linguistics (Frumkina, 1999, p. 4). New stage in development linguistic theory fix the postulates that are proposed to be considered theoretical basis cognitive approach to semantics (Baranov, Dobrovolsky, 1997). Particularly important for determining research methods and procedures and recognizing the objectivity of its results is the postulate about the irrelevance of opposition between linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge. “Cognitive linguistics, turning to the category of knowledge as a basic one, removes the opposition between linguistic and extralinguistic, allowing the researcher to use the same metalanguage to describe knowledge of different types” (ibid., p. 15). According to A. Vezhbitskaya, nature itself natural language is such that it “does not distinguish extralinguistic reality from the psychological and from the social world of native speakers” (Quoted in: Baranov, Dobrovolsky, 1997, pp. 15-16). The changes that have affected semantic research are manifested in the fact that, firstly, “the interpretation of semantic phenomena is directed not at an absolutely understood meaning, but at a cultural phenomenon that exists in a person and for a person.” Secondly, when scientific reflection turns to one’s own culture, changes occur in the field of methodology, since “the researcher is within his own culture and needs special procedures to alienate himself as a bearer of this culture from himself as its “descriptor” and researcher” ( Frumkina, 1999, pp. 3-4).

The formation of the principles of linguoculturology and the approval of the methods of this paradigm occurs in the process of active discussion of issues about its diachronic connections and current relationships with such disciplines as linguistic semantics, cognitive linguistics, ethnolinguistics, and regional linguistics. The development of new concepts also turned out to be effective: linguistic picture of the world, linguistic culture, concept, linguistic personality, discourse. We will dwell on the consideration of this issue in more detail, since it is in the course of its discussion that the opportunity arises to formulate the principles and methods of the linguocultural study of cultural values and social norms.

An important role in the development of linguoculturology was played by linguistic semantics, which in the second half of the 20th century turned to the study of super-conceptual content associated with a linguistic sign, for example, the discovery of the cultural component of meaning (Komlev, 1969; Tomakhin, 1980; Vinogradov, 1983) or the lexical background of a word ( Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1980), cultural connotative component (Belchikov, 1988), semantics of linguistic structures containing evaluation (Wolf, 1985, 1986; Arutyunova, 1987).

UDC 800

Publication date: 08/16/2016

International Journal of Professional Science No. 1-2016

Axiological component of the linguistic picture of the world

The axiological component of the language picture of the world

Jimbeeva Lolita Vasilievna
Kalmyk State University named after B.B. Gorodovikov, Elista

Dzhimbeeva Lolita Vasilievna
Kalmyk State University named after B.B.Gorodovikov

Annotation: Values are a key concept in the promising direction of linguoculturology - axiological linguistics, which at the present stage is in its infancy. Value is a judgment about the assessment of an object or phenomenon by an individual or society as a whole. Axiological linguistics considers human speech and mental activity as a simultaneous process of mastering and evaluating the surrounding reality and the materialization of accumulated experience through texts.
The axiological aspect of the relationship of an individual with the reality surrounding him is fixed in his consciousness and language in the form of a value picture of the world, which is an ordered body of knowledge formed by the cognitive consciousness of the people about the value significance of objects and phenomena of external reality, as well as a set of stereotypical ideas about outside world, which received a positive assessment among representatives of the ethnic group. A comprehensive study of values in language is possible by studying the value picture of the world, identified as a component of the linguistic picture of the world.

Abstract: Values are a key concept in a promising area of cultural-linguistic – axiological linguistics, which at the present stage is in its infancy. There is a value judgment on the assessment of an object or phenomenon by an individual or society as a whole. Axiological linguistics considers speech-thinking activity of man as a simultaneous process of development and evaluation of the environment and the materialization of experience through texts.
Axiological dimension of the relationship of the individual with the surrounding reality is fixed in his consciousness and language in the form of axiological picture of the world which is formed the cognitive consciousness of the people in an orderly body of knowledge about the value and significance of objects and phenomena of external reality and as a set of stereotypes about the outside world, which received positive evaluation among the representatives of the ethnic group. A comprehensive study of values in the language is possible with study of the axiological picture of the world that is allocated as a component of a language picture of the world.

Keywords: Ethnic picture of the world, axiological aspect, value dominants

Keywords: The ethnic picture of the world, axiological aspect, the dominant value

The term “picture of the world” is widely used in various scientific fields. This term was first used in works on physics at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries in relation to the physical picture of the world and was interpreted as “a set of internal images of external objects, from which one can logically obtain information regarding the behavior of these objects. Internal images, or symbols, of external objects created by researchers must be such that the logically necessary consequences of these ideas, in turn, are images of the naturally necessary consequences of the depicted objects” [Hertz 1973: 208].

The term “picture of the world” was widely used by the theoretical physicist Max Planck, who named one of his works on quantum physics. He understood the picture of the world as a “physical image of the world”, formed by science and reflecting the real laws of nature [Planck 1966]. The need to introduce the term “picture of the world” into the scientific research terminology was supported by the founder of modern theoretical physics, Albert Einstein: “Man strives in some adequate way to create in himself a simple and clear picture of the world in order to, to a certain extent, try to replace this world with a created one like this.” like a picture. This is what the artist, the poet, the theorizing philosopher and natural scientist do, each in his own way. A person transfers the center of gravity of his spiritual life to this picture of the world and its design in order to find peace and confidence in it, which he cannot find in the too close dizzying cycle of his own life” (Einstein 1968: 124).

The concept of “picture of the world” is studied in cultural, psychological, and biological aspects [Yartseva 2010]. Interpreting the concept of “picture of the world” in a cultural aspect, scientists define it as all knowledge about the world around us. This knowledge forms a certain image of the world in the mind of an individual belonging to a certain national culture. The image of the world existing in the mind is a mental representation of culture, therefore the picture of the world is characterized by the same properties as culture: integrity, multidimensionality, complexity [Yartseva 2010: 88].

Psychologists view the picture of the world as a product of higher nervous activity. The picture of the world is defined as “a reflection in the human psyche of the objective surrounding reality, mediated by objective meanings, corresponding cognitive schemes and amenable to conscious reflection” [Leontyev 1993: 18].

From the point of view of the biological approach, the picture of the world is considered as the entire set of representations available in the mind of the individual and reflecting the generalized experience of his direct and indirect interaction with the external environment [Yartseva 2010: 88].

The very concept of a linguistic picture of the world goes back to the ideas of the German researcher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who, considering the relationship between language and thinking, concluded that language is not a direct reflection of the world, with its help a person interprets the phenomena of the surrounding world, i.e. different languages create different images of the world for their speakers [Bogatyreva 2010].

The term “linguistic picture of the world” (“WeltbildderSprache”) was proposed by Johann Leo Weisgerber, who, based on the ideas of Humboldt, defined it as a special unique world view formed by a language for the people speaking it. L. Weisgerber began developing the concept of a linguistic picture of the world in the 30s of the 20th century. In the article “The connection between mother tongue, thinking and action” (“DieZusammenhängezwischenMuttersprache, DenkenundHandeln”), the researcher defines the term as follows: “Vocabulary specific language, includes in general, together with the totality of linguistic signs, also the totality of conceptual mental means that the linguistic community has at its disposal; and as each speaker learns this vocabulary, all members of the linguistic community become proficient in these mental tools; in this sense, we can say that the opportunity native language 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" [Radchenko 1997: 250].

The linguistic picture of the world is understood as “that part of a person’s conceptual world that is tied to language and refracted through linguistic forms” [Kubryakova 2003:5]. “Language is directly involved in two processes related to the picture of the world. Firstly, in its depths a person’s linguistic picture of the world is formed. Secondly, the language itself expresses and explicates other pictures of the human world, which, through special vocabulary, enter the language, introducing into it the features of a person and his culture. With the help of language, experimental knowledge acquired by individuals is transformed into a collective property, collective experience” [Postovalova 1988: 11].

Zavalnikov V.P. proposes the term “ethnic picture of the world,” which is “a special structured idea of the universe, characteristic of a particular ethnic group, which, on the one hand, has an adaptive function, and on the other, embodies the value dominants inherent in the culture of a particular people” [Zavalnikov 2000: 4].

Studying the history of the development of an ethnos as a social organism allows us to identify its main forms of existence: clan, tribe, nationality, nation. The first form of ethnic community is a clan - a consanguineous association of people connected by collective labor, a common language, morals, and traditions. As a result of the unification of several clans, a tribe appears - a type of ethnosocial organism of a pre-class society, characterized by a common territory, economic community, common language, origin, and consanguinity. With the further development of ethnic associations on the basis of slave-owning and feudal modes of production, an economic, linguistic, territorial and cultural community emerged - a nationality, characterized by the replacement of previous consanguineous ties with territorial ones [cit. after Vavilova 2012].

The ethnic picture of the world contains values that reflect the attitude of the people to various phenomena of reality, since the picture of the world is the result cognitive activity people, and knowledge is inseparable from evaluation. The ethnic picture of the world is realized by representatives of the ethnic group in the process of interaction with bearers of a different picture of the world. At the same time, members of the ethnic group perceive their own picture of the world as orderly, harmonious and the only true one.

“The ethnic picture of the world includes ethnic stereotypes and attitudes, background knowledge and cultural concepts that are recorded both in the mental and linguistic fields of the ethnic group” [Buryakovskaya 2000: 5].

The study of the axiological component of the ethnic picture of the world allows us to identify the specifics of the interaction between a person and the world around him, which “is divided by the speaker from the point of view of his value character - good and evil, benefit and harm, and this secondary division, conditioned socially, is reflected in a very complex way in linguistic structures "[Wolf 2002].

The axiological aspect of the relationship of an individual with the reality surrounding him is fixed in his consciousness and language in the form of a value picture of the world, which is an ordered body of knowledge formed by the cognitive consciousness of the people about the value significance of objects and phenomena of external reality, as well as a set of stereotypical ideas about the external world that have received positive assessment among representatives of the ethnic group [Eremenko 2012].

The basis of the value picture of the world in a person’s consciousness is his personal assessment of the qualities of objects and phenomena of reality. Evaluation “is determined by the physical and psychological nature of a person, his being and feeling, it determines his thinking and activity, attitude towards other people and objects of reality” [Arutyunova 1988: 24]. Expressing his opinion about the world around him, a person constantly imposes on him “a cut-off network of universal and individual ideas about good and evil (good and bad)” [Arutyunova 1984: 10]. Arutyunova N.D. notes that “the estimated value is due to physical properties subject to the extent that it is motivated by them. The same motives can serve as a basis for different assessments, since a person controls the estimated values, passing them through himself and introducing a share of arbitrariness into them” [Arutyunova 1988: 180].

“An individual’s value picture of the world is formed under the influence of traditional culture, national stereotypes, moral values passed on from generation to generation, and is completed and adjusted throughout life under the influence of external and internal circumstances determined by a person’s family, social, professional status, historical and political factors "[Galimova 2014: 197].

Karasik V.I. believes that a comprehensive study of values in language is possible by studying the value picture of the world, identified as a component of the linguistic picture of the world. The value picture of the world in language is a manifestation of the semantic law, which concludes that the most important objects and phenomena in the life of a people receive the most diverse and detailed nomination. Cross-linguistic comparison of value pictures of the world allows us to discover that the difference between them lies mostly in the frequency of certain features and the specifics of their combination.

When studying the value picture of the world, Karasik V.I. highlights the following provisions [Karasik 2002]:

In the value picture of the world in language, a universal and specific part is distinguished. The specificity of the latter lies in the differences in the nomination of objects, in the evaluative attitude towards them, in the combination of values.

The value picture of the world in a language is a system of interconnected value judgments that reflect the legal, religious, and moral codes of the native speaker people.

Existing value judgments enter into relations of inclusion and associative intersection, the study of which makes it possible to identify value paradigms in the corresponding culture.

In the value picture of the world, there are value dominants, the most significant meanings for culture, which determine the type of culture stored in language and transmitted to future generations.

The regulation of the activities of representatives of a certain ethnic group is carried out using a system of value dominants, which performs a consolidating function and determines the paths of development of the ethnic community. The value system of an ethnos develops over large historical periods, during which those values are selected that contributed to the survival of the ethnos as a whole. The value system was of particular importance, first of all, for containing and suppressing a person’s natural biological aggressiveness in relation to his own kind. A common value framework united individuals, provided socially acceptable patterns of behavior, and limited natural aggression within certain cultural boundaries. It should be noted that in different ethnic cultures the same values are arranged in different hierarchical systems and have specific nuances in their interpretation, which is determined by the historical experience of the community [Zverev 2011].

References

1. Hertz G. Principles of mechanics outlined in a new connection // Life of Science. Anthology of introductions to classical natural science. – M., 1973. – P. 208.
2. Einstein A. Evolution of physics - M.: Young Guard, 1968.
3. Yartseva K.V. The concept of “picture of the world”. Adaptive function of the world picture // Bulletin of the Northern (Arctic) federal university. Series: Humanities and social sciences. – 2010. – No. 4. – P. 87 – 90.
4. Leontyev A.A. Linguistic consciousness and the image of the world // Language and consciousness: paradoxical reality. – M., 1993. – P.16-21
5. Bogatyreva I.I. Linguistic picture of the world. – access mode: http://www.portal-slovo.ru/philology/43646.php (03.11.2010)
6. Radchenko O.A. Language as world-creation. Linguistic and philosophical concept of neo-Humboldtianism. T.1.–M., 1997.
7. Kubryakova, E.S. The linguistic picture of the world as a special way of representing the image of the world in the human mind // Bulletin of the Chuvash State Pedagogical University named after I. Ya. Yakovlev. –2003.– No. 4 (38).– P. 2-12.
8. Postovalova V. Picture of the world in the life of the world // The role of the human factor in the language. – M., 1988. – P.8-17.
9. Zavalnikov V.P. On the question of extralinguistic determinants of the linguistic picture of the world: generalization of the known // Language. Human. Picture of the world: materials of Vseros. scientific conf. Part 1. – Omsk, 2000. – P. 4.
10. Buryakovskaya V.A. Sign of ethnicity in the semantics of language (based on Russian and English languages): abstract thesis. ...Ph.D.Sc. – Volgograd, 2000.
11. Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. – Moscow, 2002.
12. Eremenko A.V. Linguistic objectification of the value component of the MARRIAGE concept in the aphorisms of American and British authors: a comparative aspect: abstract of thesis. ...Ph.D.Sc. – Vladivostok, 2012.
13. Arutyunova N.D. Axiology in the mechanisms of life and language. – M., 1984.
14. Arutyunova N.D. Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. – M., Nauka, 1988.
15. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. – M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 1999.
16. Galimova D.N. A fragment of the axiological picture of the world of Amur dialect speakers: the metaphorical model of “life-movement” // Word: folklore-dialectological almanac. – 2014. - No. 1. – P. 197-200.
17. Karasik V.I. Axiogenic situation as a unit of the value picture of the world // Political linguistics. No. 1. – 2014. – P. 65 – 75.
18. Zverev O.V. Ethnic picture of the world as an expression of the mentality of an ethnos // Bulletin of Moscow State University of Culture. – 2011. - No. 4. – P. 105-108.

Karnaukhov Igor Alexandrovich

Yatsevich Olga Evgenievna

Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department foreign languages Tyumen State Oil and Gas University

AXIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE WORLD PICTURE

POST-DEATH EXISTENCE

Karnaukhov Igor Aleksandrovich

Yatsevich Olga Evgenyevna

PhD in Philosophy, Assistant Professor, Foreign Languages Department, Tyumen State Oil and Gas University

THE AXIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF THE AFTERLIFE WORLDVIEW

Annotation:

The article reflects the characteristics of the concepts “picture of the world” and “picture of the world of posthumous existence”, and defines their functional connection. The element connecting the two concepts is the axiological principle, based on the categories “meaning of life” and “meaning of death”. The necessity of including the picture of the world of posthumous existence in the conceptual apparatus of the philosophical picture of the world is substantiated as an axiologically important construct in the knowledge of earthly existence and the posthumous existence modeled by the individual.

Keywords:

picture of the world, axiology, ontology, epistemology, posthumous existence, the meaning of life, the meaning of death.

The article deals with such concepts as "worldview" and "afterlife worldview". The functional relationship of the philosophical worldview and afterlife worldview is defined. The connecting point of two concepts is an axio-logical principle based on the categories of "meaning of life" and "meaning of death". The authors justify the need for inclusion of afterlife worldview into the conceptual apparatus of the philosophical worldview as an axiologically important construct in the cognition of this life and the personally designed afterlife.

worldview, axiology, ontology, epistemology, afterlife, meaning of life, meaning of death.

Being is considered onto-gnoseologically. In accordance with one or another cognition toolkit, one or another picture of the world is determined. The picture of the world is a multidimensional concept that is considered from scientific, philosophical, psychological, artistic, religious and other positions. The philosophical picture of the world, in which the picture of the world of posthumous existence is modeled, has not only onto-epistemological, but also activity and axiological aspects. The doctrine of values is a priority when describing the picture of the world of posthumous existence in an original scientific article.

The purpose of this study is to determine the axiological principle of the picture of the world of posthumous existence within the philosophical picture of the world.

The concept of “picture of the world” in the broadest sense is a category that defines the worldview of an individual, community or association, social groups, nations, etc. The first to use this concept is considered to be L. Wittgenstein (“Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”), although R. Redfield was the first to formulate the concept of “picture of the world.” He wrote that “the picture of the world is a vision of the universe” of a people who are objectively aware of their exclusivity, and therefore are capable of self-determination. In this meaning, the picture of the world is a reflection of an individual in relation to the external environment.

One of Redfield's main thoughts was to deny the existence of a “national” picture of the world. In contrast, he argued that a single culture contains a number of cultural traditions and rituals. There are “big” and “small” traditions. The first preserves the heritage of “schools and temples”, the second - the heritage of the “village community”. It is obvious that the cultures of peoples differ, so the picture of the world cannot be the same for everyone. The picture of the world is a necessary cognition toolkit that allows the researcher to perceive environment, “get used to” the culture of the people he is studying and adopt “their order, their categories, their accents.” Practical significance Redfield's work was to introduce

PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES

cognitive social attitudes (ethical, aesthetic, religious, philosophical, scientific, etc.) into the concept of “picture of the world”.

In search of a more precise description of the concept, researchers developed the following definitions.

Thus, K. Geertz determined the picture of the world as inherent in the bearer of a given culture “a picture of how things exist,<...>his concept of nature, self and society." V.S. Zhidkov established that the picture of the world is “a complex structured integrity, including three main components: worldview, worldview and attitude. These components are united in a way specific to a given era, ethnic group or subculture." J. Bruner defined not the picture of the world itself, but its “framework,” that is, a unique cluster of initial principles and categories, the basis of which is the innate properties of the individual. “Motion, causality, intention, identity, equivalence, time and space are categories to which something primary most likely corresponds.” These functional principles are implicitly present in the picture of the world, and a person is not always able to comprehend them, but their comprehension can lead to an axiological assessment of a certain life situation.

Based on the above definitions, the world picture of posthumous existence (KmPS) cannot be logically excluded from the world picture as its element. But to which particular picture of the world can the concept of KmPS be attributed?

At first glance, the KmPS is a functional element of the religious picture of the world, since it contrasts the natural with the absolute, including earthly existence with the posthumous. But cognition occurs at an irrational level, which excludes the possibility of scientific application of this concept. The scientific picture of the world is more formalized, works on the construction of hypotheses, theories, and in some cases excludes the axiological principle, one of the fundamental elements of the KmPS, which the philosophical picture of the world does not exclude. The universe is revealed onto-gnoseologically and axiologically. Existence is cognized conceptually, speculatively, which allows us to integrate the term “picture of the world of posthumous existence” into an already existing philosophical system. In this case, it is true that the philosophical picture of the world is “a systemically rationalized set of ideas about the world as a whole.”

Earthly existence is differentiated in full by revealing the relationship between man and the surrounding reality. The problem is that the modern philosophical picture of the world ignores ideas about posthumous existence and, to a certain extent, excludes the study of this issue in the onto-epistemological field. The necessary theoretical analysis of the KmPS is almost absent, which leads to a certain incompleteness of the philosophical picture of the world as such. To solve this problem, a conceptual apparatus has been developed based on the axiological category “meaning of life” and a category close to it - “meaning of death”.

Personality exists directly within the boundaries of earthly existence, and it is aware of the finiteness of its existence. Faced with a dialectical contradiction, a person models posthumous existence based on earthly existence, and models it consciously in accordance with certain axiological norms. As a result, moral regulations arise that order earthly life person.

Epochs change one after another, which refracts the existing reality; the views of researchers, first of all, on the axiological-active vision of this picture of the world change. If for Anaxagoras such a picture was “nous”, where spiritual and mechanistic forces predominated, then Empedocles identified four dominant principles: water, air, fire and earth, which have their own driving forces, as well as Love and Hate, capable of both creation and to destruction.

The changed picture of the world is to some extent similar to the Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors, according to researcher L.V. Baeva. The scientific and technological revolution, and with it progress, marked the beginning of the alienation of man from God, his conscious alienation from higher powers, and led to the secularization of the picture of the world. All natural phenomena were deliberately deprived of their divine meaning, man began to be viewed as a unique individual in the vast cosmos, and the importance of the life of an individual became dominant against the background of the fading of faith in God.

The existentialists loudly declared that “God is dead” and life and the world are important as long as I myself exist. Man himself is responsible for his life, his actions, Fate; he independently hoisted a cross on himself, which he is able to carry with his head held high.

In the modern picture of the world, subjective features prevail, distorting reality, refracting and upsetting its balance, there is a westernization of traditions, dictating to the individual a vector for self-actualization, which is constantly shifting due to the dynamism modern life. Personality in modern society mostly locked into her ego, which

is a direct road to self-destruction, degradation, egocentric moods and behavior, which one way or another does not allow a person to consciously come to awareness and form a correct picture of the world.

1. Geertz S. Ethos. World-View and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols//Hamme E.A., Simmons W.S. Man Makes Sense. Boston, 1970.

2. Zhidkov V.S., Sokolov K.B. Art and picture of the world. St. Petersburg, 2003. 464 p.

3. Bruner J. Psychology of cognition. Beyond immediate information. M., 1977. 413 p. (Social sciences abroad. Philosophy and sociology).

4. See: Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy. M., 1976. P. 62-88.

5. See: Baeva L.V. Values of a changing world: monograph. Astrakhan, 2004. 277 p.