Language World Picture and National-Cultural Specificities in Oral and Written Text

  So, a Gestalt the essence the universal representations belonging to depths of human mentality in general and as whole laying out of categorical frameworks of a natural language, i.e. substantial sizes transcendental: a Gestalt lays directly behind a side stated and is organic with it are connected. Reconstructed on the basis of real language data, a Gestalt becomes real substantial sizes of the nearest transcendental.

Humboldt’s idea about “language world outlook has received development in contemporary neogumboltism. Really, each people in own way dismember variety of the world, in own way name these fragments of the world. Originality of the “constructing” world picture determines by individual, group and national (ethnic) verbal and nonverbal experience. National originality of language world picture is examined by neogumbalts not as the result of prolonged historical development, but as given primordial quality of languages. They think people create their unique world, different from that which surrounds them. World picture of the speaker, really, considerable differs from the objective characteristics, objects, happenings description, because it is a “subjective image of objective world”. However language itself doesn’t create that subjective world picture.

World picture, which can be named knowledge about the world, lies on the basis of individual and social consciousness. Language fulfils requirements of informative process. Conceptual pictures of the world at different people can be various, for example at representatives of different epoch, different social, age groups, different areas of scientific knowledge etc. People speaking in different languages, can have under certain conditions close conceptual pictures of the world, and the people speaking in one language, - different. Hence, in a conceptual picture of the world co-operates universal, national and personal.

Picture world is not a simple set of “photos” of subjects, processes, properties etc.  It includes not only the reflected objects, but also a position of the reflecting subject, its relation to these objects, at that moment position of the subject is the same reality as same objects. Moreover, as reflexion of the world by the person is not active, and passive, the relation to objects not only generated by these objects, but also is capable for changing them (through activity). From here follows that the system of a national language takes part in designing language picture of the world. Language picture of the world in the whole and main coincides with logic reflexion of the world in consciousness of people. But thus saves the separate items in language world picture to which we include phraseology; every language has its own phraseologies.

Phraseologies play an important role in formation of the language world picture. They are “mirrors of the nation’s life”. The meanings of phraseologies are closely connected with the background knowledges of the speaker, with his life experience, with historical-cultural traditions of his nation. Phraseological units   attribute signs to objects which associate with a world picture, mean the whole descriptive situation (text), estimate it, and express the relation to it. By their semantics phraseological units are directed to the person’s activity and behavior.

Sense of whole lines of basic words and phraseological units were formed on the basis of anthropocentric understanding of the world, like a column head, a bottle neck, a table leg, to appropriate, a finger about a finger not to strike, continually, etc. Such nominative units create a cultural-national picture of the world in which the life and customs, customs and behavior of people, their relation to the world and to each other are reflected.

The language picture of the world is created by different paints, the brightest, from our point of view, is mythologemy, is figurative-metaphoric words, connotative words, etc. Our outlook partially is in captivity of language picture of the world. Each concrete language comprises national, original system which defines outlook of bearers of the given language and forms their picture of the world.

Exactly in substantial side of the language (less in grammar) world picture of given ethnos is shown. It’s analyzing help scientists to understand how national cultures differ from each other and how they complement each other. Thus, if values of all words were, in general, cultural specific it would be impossible to investigate cultural distinctions. Therefore being engaged in cultural-national aspect, scientists also consider universal properties of language units. Naïve world picture is reflected in language, which forms as an answer to practical needs of people, as necessary cognate basis of his adaption to the world. Pragmatically egocentrism structures activity as it can form the cognitive area of person.  The person measures vast spaces, labor and intellectual activity, a storm of the feelings through itself, accepting all in itself and extending itself on world around. The language picture of the world keeps model of such anthropocentrism and during times when the person depreciates or selects other valuable priorities.

  Most likely, set of subject figurative-evident reference representations about subjects, the phenomena which person meets throughout a life more often, than with others, as a whole forms some stable language picture reflexion of the objective validity.

Naïve language picture differs with considerable pragmatism. Applying for absolute true, knowledge of the given type can depart from that that the traditional science would count as an objective truth. Their criterion is formal-logic consistency, and in itself integrity and universality of model, its ability to serve explaining matrix for experience structuring.

Wittgenstein in the Tractatus focussed on a picture theory of language. He was clear that this meant that language mirrored reality, mirrored the world. The picture theory was an account in essence of the relation between a word and what it referred to in the external environment, or between a sentence, a proposition or sachverhalt and the event or situation to which it referred.

Every language world picture can keep casual standard lacunes, logically unexplainable. At use of complete images as standards without instructions of the basis of comparison on the foreground the approving or disapproving emotional relation of the subject of speech to the designated, as a rule, is put forward.

The world reflected through a prism of the mechanism of secondary sensations, embodied in metaphors, comparisons, symbols, is a primary factor which defines universality and specificity of any concrete national language picture of the world.

Thus, the important circumstance is differentiation of the universal human factor and national specificity in various language pictures of the world. As the genetic mechanism is an estimation of corporal sensations, that, intertwining with human activity, simultaneously both universal, and national-specific, it invariably leads, as a result of such interaction, to creation of language pictures of the world with typologically general and specific features.

 The human activity including as a component and symbolical, i.e. Cultural, installed simultaneously also it is universal, and national-is specific. These properties define both an originality of a language picture of the world, and its universality.

I Integrated form of the reality in ordinary consciousness first of all includes repeating presentations of empirical practice and symbolical universe. Every culture type produces its own symbolic language and “world image” which provides them with meanings of language elements. O.Spengler even offered the term “parasymbol” for characterization of the culture in spatial extend.

Choice of etalons and symbols in naïve world picture actually is motivated. That motivation depends on characteristic of the whole conceptual system and may be exposed in several cases of language world picture. Phraseological units itself, examined by us, as V.N.Telia said can: “Act the role of etalons, stereotypes of national-cultural world look, or indicate to their symbolic character and play the role of cultural signs.”        

The naive picture of the world of orderly consciousness, in which the subject way of perception prevails, has interpreting character. Language, fixing collective stereotypic and reference representations, objectify and also does interpreting activity of human consciousness accessible to studying.

One of the most interesting concepts explaining communication of language and culture belongs toW.Humboldt who considers, that national character of culture finds reflexion in language by means of special vision of the world. Language and culture, being rather independent phenomena, are connected through values of language signs which provide ontological unity of language and culture.

In the end of XX century we experienced lingvocultural boom when problems of interrelation of language and culture left in number of the most actual in modern linguistics: last five years almost in each European country has passed on several lingvocultural conferences, there were their materials, and collections of articles which are published.

     In last decade linguistics turn toward to language learning in close connection with people. It has defined anthropological principle in linguistics when language studying become studying of the speaking person. The anthropological linguistics is understood, first of all, as research of the human factor in language. In the attention centre it appears two circles of problems:

Definition of how the person influences language;

Definition of how language influences the person, its thinking, culture.

To number of the fundamental concepts expressing specificity of the person and its mutual relations with the world, the concept of a picture of the world concerns.

The world picture is a complete image of the world which grows out of all spiritual activity of the person. It arises at the person during it in detail-practical activities, directed on world reconsideration. The person feels the world, beholds it, comprehends, learns, interprets, reflects, stays in it. Thus, the image of the world arises in various certificates of attitude, world outlook, a world view, attitude, outlooks- in certificates of experience of the world as integrity.

Depending on the bases which undertake as criteria, the typology of pictures of the world can be created. So, depending on the subject of knowledge, the picture of the world of the adult person and the child, a picture of the world of a civilised society and an archaic picture of the world is allocated. Depending on object, differ global and local (often scientific) world pictures. An example of complete pictures of the world is general philosophical, general scientific, religious pictures of the world. As the local sociological, information, physical, art pictures of the world act.

The scientific picture of the world, in its modern condition is an ideal which constantly changes in process of change of a paradigm of knowledge and at revision of views and theories. Figuratively speaking, this not finished picturesque cloth of the artist, and «a mobile mosaic», which separate elements that are scattered, gather again.

In each culture key words exist. To be considered as a culture keyword, it should be often used, the word should be a part of phraseological units and proverbs.

Hence, each concrete language represents system which leaves the mark on consciousness of its speakers and forms their original picture of the world.  

1.2. Language and culture: problems of interaction.

     Language is that problem of interrelation which lays on the surface of person’s culture life, therefore since XIX century (J.Grimm, R.Raek, V.Humboldt, A.A.Potebnja) and to this day, language and culture interactions is one of central in linguistics. The first attempts of the decision of this problem  have shown in V.Humboldt's (1985) works which substantive provisions of the concept can be reduced to the following: 1) material and spiritual culture are embodied in language; 2) any culture is national, its national character is expressed in language by means of special vision of the world; internal specific view of the world is inherent for every language; 3) language is an expression of "national spirit», its culture; 4) language is a mediating link between the person and the world surrounding it. W.Humboldt's concept has received original interpretation in A.A.Potebni's work «Thought and language», in S.Balli, Z.Vandrieza's works, Bo-duena de Courter, R.O.Yakobson and other researchers.

The best minds of XIX century (V.Humboldt, A.A.Potebnja) treated language as spiritual force. Language is such environment surrounding us, out of which and without which participation we cannot live. As V.Humboldt wrote, language is «the world lies between the world of the external phenomena and private world of the person». Hence, being the environment of our dwelling, language does not exist out of us as an objective reality, it is in ourselves, in our consciousness, our memory; it changes the outlines with each movement of thought, with each new welfare role.

Within the limits of the second approach Sapir and Whorf School, various schools of neogumbolts, developed a so-called hypothesis of a linguistic relativity investigation of this problem.

At the heart of this hypothesis the belief lays, that what people see the world differently - through a prism of the native language. For its supporters the real world exists so far as it is reflected in language. But if each language reflects the reality in the way inherent only for it, hence, languages differ with their «language pictures of the world».

Sapir and Whorf interpreted these data as indicating that colors are not objective, naturally determined segments of reality.  In other words, the colors we see are predetermined by what our culture prepares us to see.  This example used to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was objectively tested in the 1960's.  That research indicated that they went too far.  All normal humans share similar sense perceptions of color despite differences in color terminology from one language to another.  The physiology of our eyes is essentially the same.  People all over the world can see subtle gradations of color and can comprehend other ways of dividing up the spectrum of visible light.  However, as a society's economy and technology increase in complexity, the number of color terms usually also increases.  That is to say, the spectrum of visible light gets subdivided into more categories.  As the environment changes, culture and language typically respond by creating new terminology to describe it.

In hypothesis of Sapir-Whorf following substantive provisions are allocated: 1. Language causes a way of thinking of the people speaking on it. 2. The way of knowledge of the real world depends on in what languages learners think. «We dismember the nature in a direction prompted by our language. We allocate in the world of the phenomena those or other categories and types at all because they are axiomatic, on the contrary, the world appears to us as a kaleidoscopic stream of impressions which should be organized in our consciousness, and it means basically - the language system stored in our consciousness. We dismember the world, we will organize it in concepts and we distribute values so, instead of differently, basically because we are participants of the agreement ordering similar ordering. This agreement is valid for certain language collective and is fixed in system of models of our language».

The given hypothesis has got support and the further working out in L.Vejsgerbera's works, in its concept of language as "the intermediate world», standing between the objective reality and consciousness. «Language operates as creating force in all areas of a spiritual life».

In researches of some authors the hypothesis of a linguistic relativity has received modern actual sounding. First of all - in D.Olfrda's works, J. Carrols, D.Hajmsa and other authors in which concepts Sapir-Whorf theory is essentially filled. So, D.Hajms has entered one more principle of a functional relativity of languages according to which there is a distinction in character of their communicative functions between languages. Negative estimation to hypothesis of Sapir Whorf give D.Dodd, G.V.Kolshansky, R.M.Uajt, R.M.Frumkina, E.Hollen-shtejn.

Verbal illusions play the big role in creation of social stereotypes, for example, national stereotypes of "German", «Chukchi», "Caucasians" who form national prejudices. Verbal stamps which paint the world in the necessary color take root in minds of people: the light future, great indestructible friendship of the people, great accomplishments etc. It is not casual that governors of the totalitarian states paid special attention to language: Lenin's struggle for language "clearing", Stalin's article about language, Brezhnev's struggle against "infection" of language with foreign lexicon etc.

     There are many ways of theorizing the relationship between the social and the cultural. In this limited context, we just want to stress that all societal life may be considered as both social and cultural.

The analysis of social life typically deals with relational, temporal and spatial aspects of activities, institutions and structures, whereas the analysis of cultural life typically deals with the production and reproduction of meaning and representations of various realities. The two sides cannot be separated from each other. All social life carries meaning, and all exchanges and negotiations of meaning are embedded in more or less shifting social structures and relations of power.

When we focus on language as a means of forming meaning, we enter an intellectual tradition very different from the sociolinguistic approach we have just outlined. The intimate connections between (specific) languages and (specific) cultures has been a fundamental theme in the nation building process in Europe since the late 18th century, not least in the German form of national romanticism.

Foreign language studies since the 19th century have been deeply influenced by this figure of thought, and are just beginning to question the national paradigm and look for alternative ways of conceptualizing the study of language, literature and culture.

Nowadays, the most usual and easy way of dealing with the relationship between language and culture is to state that it is a complex relationship, thus verbalizing the difficulties of coming to grips with this thorny question. Those who do formulate an opinion on the issue may largely be characterized as holding one of two opposite positions:

· language and culture are inseparable

· language and culture are separable

The first view is associated with the cultural turn in linguistics since the 1980s, and is maintained in various forms in research disciplines such as linguistic anthropology, translation studies, and studies of intercultural communication. This is of course also a popular belief among people in general, not least in Europe in the present process of political integration of nation states in a larger union. The second view is mostly associated with the study of English as an international language. In this case it is maintained that languages - and especially English - should be seen as flexible instruments of communication that may in principle be used with any subject matter by anybody anywhere in the world.

As we already said, none of these positions is satisfying. The first one emphasizes that language is culture-bound, and one is not far from a conception of a closed universe of language, people, nation, culture, history, mentality and land. This position is totally at odds with the social and transnational view of language that I have just presented. The other position claims that language is culturally neutral. Language is seen as a code, and one is not far from a reconstitution of the classical structuralist conception of the autonomy of language. To this we would say that no language is culturally neutral. All natural languages (i.e. their users) constantly produce and reproduce culture (i.e. meaning).

     For many people, language is not just the medium of culture but also is a part of culture. It is quite common for immigrants to a new country to retain their old customs and to speak their first language amid fellow immigrants, even if all present are comfortable in their new language. This occurs because the immigrants are eager to preserve their own heritage, which includes not only customs and traditions but also language. This is also seen in many Jewish communities, especially in older members: Yiddish is commonly spoken because it is seen as a part of Jewish culture.

Linguistic differences are also often seen as the mark of another culture, and they very commonly create divisiveness among neighboring peoples or even among different groups of the same nation. A good example of this is in Canada, where French-speaking natives of Quebec clash with the English-speaking majority. This sort of conflict is also common in areas with a great deal of tribal warfare. It is even becoming an issue in America as speakers of standard American English - mainly whites and educated minorities - observe the growing number of speakers of Black English vernacular. Debates are common over whether it is proper to use "Ebonics" in schools, while its speakers continue to assert that the dialect is a fundamental part of the "black culture".

      L.Elemsev expressed an idea that language and reality are structurally similar and language structure can be equating to the structure of the reality or can be regarded as its deformed reflection.

  E.F.Tarasov notices, that language is included in culture as sign "body" (meaning) is a cultural subject, in which language and communicative ability of the person are featured, value of a sign is also cultural formation which arises only in human activity. As well culture is included into language, because it is shaped in text. 

At the same time, language and culture interaction is needed to be investigated extremely cautiously, remembering, that they are different semiotics systems. For the sake of justice it is necessary to tell, that, being semiotics systems, they have much in common: 1) culture, no less than language, are the forms of consciousness displaying outlook of the person; 2)  culture and language exist in dialogue between themselves; 3) the subject of culture and language is always the individual or society, the person or a society; 4) norm is general for language and culture line; 5) a historicism is one of intrinsic properties of culture and language; 6) “dynamic-static” is inherent for language and culture.