Considering the concept of “worldview” in a scientific and psychological context, one can consider concepts that are related, generic, in order to more accurately and definitely understand the meaning of the first. So yes. Leontiev believes that the concept of “image of the world”, “picture of the world” are close in meaning to the concept of “worldview”.
The concept of “image of the world” is more traditional for science and is actively used by various psychologists, linguists, and philosophers. Specifically in psychological science the introduction of the term “image of the world” was associated with the dissemination of the general psychological theory of activity by A.N. Leontiev, in the context of which the process of constructing an image was considered, which is mainly determined not by individual perceived characteristics of objects, but by the peculiarities of constructing the image of the world by the object as a whole.
A.N. Leontyev considers the “image of the world” as “a methodological installation that prescribes the study of an individual’s cognitive processes in the context of his subjective picture of the world, as it develops in this individual throughout development cognitive activity". His position that “the formation of a person’s image of the world is his transition beyond the limits of the “directly sensory picture””, that the image of the world is not a finite, framed picture, but a dynamic formation that depends directly on the perceiving object, served as an impetus for further study phenomenon of worldview.
Thus, those who consider the problem of image perception within the framework cognitive processes, S.D. Smirnov, V.V. Petukhov, give a different meaning to the term we have taken in their works.
S.D. Smirnov in his works makes a distinction between the “world of images”, interpreted as individual sensory impressions, and the “image of the world”, characterized by integrity and completeness, which is amodal, has a multi-level structure of knowledge, acquiring emotional and personal meaning. Petukhov, considering the concept of “image of the world,” in his article proposes to use methods and techniques for solving mental problems as a structural unit in the study of ideas about the world, and also speaks of the need for further study of the perception of images.
Also, the understanding of the external and internal world is discussed by Vasilyuk in the book “Psychology of Experience”. The author identifies a typology of life worlds based on the characteristics of simplicity or complexity of the internal and external worlds, considering them not as gradation, but as a kind of integrity. " Lifeworlds“are considered not as separate, opposed sections of the real world, but as components of a single psychological inner world of the individual.
Also, different understanding The terms “image of the world”, “picture of the world” can be found in the works of V.V. Zinchenko, Yu.A. Aksenova, N.N. Koroleva, E.E. Sapogova, E.V. Ulybina, A.P. Stetsenko.
However, for our study, the most interesting is the interpretation of D.A. Leontyev. In the article “Worldview as a Myth and Worldview as an Activity,” he gives the following definition of the term “picture of the world”: “This is an individual system of ideas that each person has about how the world works in its various details.”
Emphasizing the subjective coherence of the picture of the world, the author talks about the ability of the psyche to build up its own ideas and beliefs to some complete, finished model, as if removing all unknown components, erasing their significance for itself. Thus, the picture of the world can be filled with objective knowledge, facts of the surrounding world, and with one’s own fantasies and conjectures, but in any case, the individual has the need to feel an accurate and integral system of “life guidelines.”
And the worldview, in turn, being a central component of the picture of the world (see Fig. 3), carries within itself a certain generalization - generalized judgments and beliefs about any objects, which can be understood both as a structural unit and as a criterion for identification. So, for example, a judgment about a certain single object “Alina is stupid” is not yet a ideological unit, but only reflects an attitude towards this object or notices a fact of the surrounding world, and the belief in the position that “all women are stupid”, which contains a generalized generalized conclusion is already a worldview unit.
Rice. 3
Thus, under the worldview of Leontyev D.A. understands" component, more precisely, the core individual image world, containing both ideas about the most general properties, connections and patterns inherent in objects and phenomena of reality, their relationships, as well as human activity and relationships between people, as well as ideas about the characteristics of an ideal, perfect world, society and man."
The concept of a picture of the world is one of the fundamental concepts that express the specifics of man and his existence, his relationship with the world, the most important condition his existence in the world. Pictures of the world are extremely diverse, since it is always a unique vision of the world, its semantic construction in accordance with a certain logic of worldview and worldview. They have historical, national, social determination. There are as many pictures of the world as there are ways of seeing the world, since each person perceives the world and builds its image taking into account his individual experience, social experience, social conditions life.
The linguistic picture of the world does not stand alongside special pictures of the world (chemical, physical, etc.), it precedes them and forms them, because a person is able to understand the world and himself thanks to language, in which socio-historical experience, both universal and and national. The latter determines specific features language at all its levels. Due to the specificity of a language, a specific linguistic picture of the world appears in the minds of its speakers, through the prism of which a person sees the world.
The analyzed picture of the world appears in the system various paintings the world's most durable and sustainable. In the light of the modern concept of linguistic philosophy, language is interpreted as a form of existence of knowledge.
Therefore, the study of the linguistic picture of the world turned out to be last years especially significant for all areas of scientific knowledge.
Of particular note is the opinion of Yu.D. Apresyan, who substantiated the idea that the linguistic picture of the world is “naive”. It seems to complement objective knowledge about reality, often distorting it. In the world model modern man the boundary between the naive and scientific pictures has become less distinct, since the historical practice of mankind inevitably leads to an ever wider invasion of scientific knowledge into the sphere of everyday ideas imprinted in the facts of language, or to the expansion of the sphere of these everyday ideas at the expense of scientific concepts.
A set of ideas about the world contained in meaning different words and expressions of a given language, develops into a certain system of views or prescriptions. The ideas that form the picture of the world are included in the meanings of words in an implicit form; a person accepts them on faith, without thinking, and often without even noticing it. Using words containing implicit meanings, a person, without noticing it, accepts the view of the world contained in them.
On the contrary, those semantic components that are included in the meaning of words and expressions in the form of direct statements can be the subject of dispute between different speakers of the language and thus are not included in the general fund of ideas that forms the linguistic picture of the world.
It should be noted, first of all, that researchers approach the consideration of the national and cultural specifics of certain aspects or fragments of the worldview with different positions: some take the original language and analyze established facts interlingual similarities or divergences through the prism of linguistic systematicity and talk about the linguistic picture of the world; for others, the starting point is culture, the linguistic consciousness of members of a certain linguistic and cultural community, and the focus is on the image of the world. There are often cases when the fundamental differences between these two approaches are simply not noticed or when the declared study of the image of the world is actually replaced by a description of the linguistic picture of the world from the standpoint of the language system. Since we will talk below about research carried out from the perspective of different approaches, it seems justified to use the term “picture of the world” as a neutral term, accompanying it with the clarification “linguistic” or replacing the word “picture” with the word “image”.
Be that as it may, one cannot help but admit that there is gradually an awareness of the need for a decisive reorientation of such research from benchmarking language systems to study the national and cultural specifics of the real functioning of the language and those associated with it cultural values, linguistic consciousness, linguistic / linguocultural competence, etc. So V.N. Telia defines the subject of linguoculturology as the study and description of the cultural semantics of linguistic signs (nominative inventory and texts) in their living, synchronously acting use, reflecting the cultural and national mentality of native speakers. At the same time, it is indicated that the interactive processes of interaction between two semiotic systems (language and culture) are studied from the standpoint of the cultural and linguistic competence of the speaker/listener; explication of the cognitive procedures carried out by the subject when interpreting the culturally significant reference of linguistic signs is carried out on the material of the living functioning of language in discourses different types with the aim of studying “cultural self-awareness, or mentality, of both an individual subject and a community in its polyphonic integrity.”
Any language is a unique structured network of elements that reveal their ethnic core through a system of meanings and associations. Systems of seeing the world are different in different languages. According to A. Vezhbitskaya: Each language forms its own semantic universe. Not only can thoughts be thought in one language, but feelings can also be experienced within one language consciousness, but not another.
As V.V. correctly noted. Vorobyov, the development of culture occurs in the depths of the nation, the people in conditions of unconditional essential national unity. Language is the embodiment of the uniqueness of a people, the originality of their vision of the world, and ethnic culture. There are no two absolutely identical in the world national cultures. Even W. von Humboldt said that different languages, in their essence, in their influence on cognition and feelings, are in fact different worldviews. In language we always find a fusion of the original linguistic character with what is perceived by the language from the character of the nation. The influence of the nature of language on the subjective world is undeniable.
Each language is, first of all, a national means of communication and, according to E.O. Oparina, it reflects specific national facts of the material and spiritual culture of the society that it (the language) serves. Acting as a translator of culture, language is capable of influencing the way of understanding the world characteristic of a particular linguistic and cultural community.
Language is, first of all, a tool for transmitting thoughts. It is not reality itself, but only a vision of it, imposed on native speakers by the ideas about this reality that they have in their minds. Language, as the main custodian of ethnocultural information, is a carrier and means of expressing specific features of ethnic mentality.
According to W. von Humboldt, the character of a nation affects the character of the language, and it, in turn, represents the united spiritual energy of the people and embodies the uniqueness of the whole people; language expresses a certain vision of the world, and not just an imprint of the ideas of the people.
According to V.Yu. Apresyan, mentality and linguistic picture of the world are interconnected and interdependent. Knowledge about essentially idioethnic mental worlds forms a linguistic picture of the world, a unique sphere of existence of cultures.
In linguoculturology, in addition to the concept of linguistic picture of the world, there are also the concepts of conceptual picture of the world, ethnic (national) picture of the world.
Most linguists agree that the conceptual picture of the world is a broader concept than the linguistic one, since, as E.S. rightly notes. Kubryakova: The picture of the world is how a person pictures the world in his imagination, a phenomenon more complex than the linguistic picture of the world, i.e. that part of a person’s conceptual world that is tied to language and refracted through linguistic forms. Not everything perceived and cognized by a person, not everything that has passed and passed through different sense organs and coming from the outside through different channels into a person’s head has or acquires a verbal form. That is, the conceptual picture of the world is a system of ideas, a person’s knowledge about the world around him, it is a mental reflection of the cultural experience of a nation, while the linguistic picture of the world is its verbal embodiment. The picture of the world reflects naive ideas about inner world of a person, it condenses the introspection experience of dozens of generations and, because of this, it serves as a reliable guide to this world. A person looks at the world not only through the prism of his individual experience, but, above all, through the prism of social experience.
The national picture of the world is reflected in the semantics of linguistic units through a system of meanings and associations; words with special culturally specific meanings reflect not only the way of life characteristic of a linguistic community, but also a way of thinking.
So, national specificity in the semantics of a language is the result of the influence of extralinguistic factors, cultural and historical features development of the people.
Based on the triad - language, culture, human personality the linguistic picture of the world represents linguistic culture as a lens through which one can see the material and spiritual identity of an ethnic group.
Language is most directly related to expression personal qualities a person, and in the grammatical system of many natural languages the attitude towards the individual in one or another of its incarnations is fixed. However, the concept of linguistic personality arises only in last decades in the bosom of anthropological linguistics, where it naturally occupies a central place.
The concept of “linguistic personality” is formed by the projection into the field of linguistics of the corresponding interdisciplinary term, in the meaning of which philosophical, sociological and psychological views on the socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person that make up his qualitative certainty are refracted. First of all, a “linguistic personality” is understood as a person as a native speaker of a language, taken from the perspective of his ability for speech activity, i.e. a complex of psychophysical properties of an individual that allows him to produce and perceive speech works - essentially a speech personality. “Linguistic personality” also means a set of features of the verbal behavior of a person who uses language as a means of communication - a communicative personality.
And finally, “linguistic personality” can be understood as the basic national-cultural prototype of the speaker, fixed primarily in the lexical system specific language, a kind of “semantic sketch” compiled on the basis of ideological principles, value priorities and behavioral reactions reflected in the dictionary - dictionary, ethnic-semantic personality.
The “naive picture of the world” as a fact of everyday consciousness is reproduced fragmentarily in the lexical units of language, but the language itself does not directly reflect this world, it reflects only the way of representing (conceptualizing) this world by a national linguistic personality, and therefore the expression “linguistic picture of the world” in sufficiently conditionally: the image of the world, reconstructed based on the data of linguistic semantics alone, is rather schematic, since its texture is woven mainly from distinctive features, which form the basis for the categorization and nomination of objects, phenomena and their properties, and for adequacy, the linguistic image of the world is corrected by empirical knowledge about reality, common to users of a certain natural language.
“Linguistic personality,” the concept of which has been developed in recent years by Yu.N. Karaulov. In his works, linguistic personality is defined as “the totality of a person’s abilities and characteristics that determine the creation and perception of speech works(texts), which differ in a) the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, b) the depth and accuracy of the reflection of reality, c) a certain target orientation. This definition combines a person’s abilities with the characteristics of the texts he generates,” and therefore, we add, this is rather a definition of linguistic personality, rather than personality as a manifestation of the latter. Yu.N. Karaulov presents the structure of a linguistic personality, consisting of three levels: “1) verbal-semantic, which presupposes for the speaker normal command of natural language, and for the researcher - a traditional description of the formal means of expressing certain meanings; 2) cognitive, the units of which are concepts, ideas, concepts, which for each linguistic individual develop into a more or less ordered, more or less systematized “picture of the world”, reflecting a hierarchy of values. The cognitive level of the structure of a linguistic personality and its analysis presupposes an expansion of meaning and a transition to knowledge, and therefore covers the intellectual sphere of the personality, giving the researcher access through language, through the processes of speaking and understanding - to knowledge, consciousness, human cognition processes; 3) pragmatic, containing goals, motives, interests, attitudes and intentionalities. These levels provide a natural and conditioned transition in the analysis of a linguistic personality from assessments of her speech activity to comprehension of speech activity in the world."
The cognitive and pragmatic levels of linguistic personality have a direct connection with imagery, which is the subject of study in this work, to which we now turn.
Individual picture of creation
Greetings, children of the Earth and the Sun. The questions that you sometimes ask reflect your old attachments to the egregor of society, the habits and stereotypes accepted in it. You strive for change, but your ideas about it follow from general patterns. Moreover, part of your thinking is gradually moving away from this, although it cannot yet give a clear picture of a new life and therefore offers programs of change embedded in the general field.
A gap arises between the passing past and the emerging new moment. There is an intuitive understanding that it has a fundamentally different quality, different from the old one. This applies to everything: the way of being, awareness and ideas about life and the experience that you intend to go through. Everything is now built on different templates, programs and definitions of the person himself.
Today physical aspect has different characteristics and possibilities when it enters the space of its experience. He is consciously included in the research process not just as an object, but as one who has the rights and responsibilities to develop, as a creation of God, being responsible for his actions and deeds, and accepting their significance in development. Such a person builds his life based not on social attitudes (for example, morality), but primarily on internal aspirations, and at the same time remembers that everyone also has rights and responsibilities as God’s creations.
You begin to accept yourself from the position of a part of the One, which explores and fills the space of its experience with its individual characteristics. At the same time, not everything that happens becomes immediately obvious and understandable to you, remaining hidden behind something familiar and familiar. It’s as if you are looking at the door of a closed room and you know that there is something behind it, but it is not yet available to you. Once you open it, you will see and understand a lot, and then decide what to take from it and what to refuse.
IN currently you look around and notice that everything is familiar, and there are no bright changes in appearance that you are striving for. Your ideas about any transformations still largely come from the external universal field. I'm talking about the internal definitions of some transformations and their reflection in space. Human for a long time built his life based, first of all, on what society, family, and so on needed. For a moment he forgot about his divine component, giving up part of his own freedom and responsibility to external demands and ideas; lived based on them and strived for ideals given from outside.
Today you remember your divine essence and seek perfection within yourself. Thus, you strive for the original point of your creation, while simultaneously trying to preserve your individual experience of development. Your path is unique and brings many bright colors. In your development, you go through various stages, remaining a creation of the One with all its inherent characteristics.
In the process of learning, you acquire your personality traits, and the divine component, which is your basis, gives you part of the power and strength of the One. At the same time, much is a discovery for you, a revelation that you explore, which makes the process of gaining experience attractive. At first, being in the dark, a person gradually discovers a lot of new things, painting them with his own colors, which adds completeness and sophistication to the canvas of creation.
Now you look around and don't yet see what other palette to use to get a different drawing. It is internal aspiration and intention that will allow you to find them and get a picture of a different quality, more voluminous and brighter. Internal concentration and confidence in the correctness of the chosen decision help to complete it. External world creates a background that frames it and makes it more noticeable, without distracting attention from the creation itself.
You and your life are the painting of such a picture, where one plays the role of the painting itself, and the other plays the role of a frame. How can you tell the difference? Where your attention is concentrated is the picture, the rest is the frame. In this case, in one case, you can make either a picture or a frame attractive and bright. In another - to strive for balance and harmony between the picture and the frame. In the space of the Creator, everything is interesting and significant. Here freedom of choice for God's creations is manifested. Everything is going as it should. Thank you.
The following criteria are identified, on the basis of which one can distinguish the features of different pictures of the world:
· scale;
· clarity;
· emotional coloring;
· light and darkness;
· presence of past, present and future;
· analytism and synthetism;
· separation of the subject from external environment;
· activity-passivity;
· iconicity (symbolicity);
· reflexivity;
· saturation of interpersonal relationships;
· conformity;
· determinism of the world order;
· degree of general development;
· features of the development of the representative system.
(Subcultural picture of the world)
The world is neither good nor bad, the ancient sages argued, it is the way we perceive it. What determines the perception of the world, and, consequently, the attitude towards it, by a person?
It has long been known that even the most conscientious witnesses who observed the same episode often give conflicting testimony about it. This happens because witnesses may have more or less significantly different pictures of the world. Let's say that for some it is dominated by light, for others - dark tones, for some it is in the center of the past, for others - the future, for some it is saturated with human relationships, for others the main place is given to nature; Some pictures of the world are complex and colorful, others are simple and colorless, etc. And by projecting an episode into his existing picture of the world, the witness certainly subjects it to transformation. The picture of the world serves as something like a coordinate grid that determines the meaning and content of any perceived objects and images. This happens because people feel and act not in accordance with certain “objective facts,” but based on their always subjective ideas about them. And these latter are determined by many circumstances. Research has established that, for example, “ideas about happiness and hierarchy life values may diverge noticeably not only among different nations and cultures, but also among representatives different generations or different subcultures within one culture, one people.” main reason This is the presence of different peoples, ethnic groups and subcultures and, perhaps, each person has his own individual painting the world, in accordance with the characteristics of which each person behaves in one way or another.
A unique picture of the world is inherent in any social community– from nation or ethnic group to social or professional group or an individual. Moreover, each period of historical time has its own picture of the world. In other words, any sufficiently large human community has differentiated pictures of the world both horizontally (different social groups of contemporaries) and vertically: pictures of the world are not something frozen, but a historically changing process of adaptation to changing realities. So, for example, the picture of the world of a peasant differs from the picture of the world of his contemporary university professor. But in the same way, today’s peasant or professor perceives the world completely differently from representatives of these same social groups a hundred years ago. The worldviews of a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian, a Muslim and a Buddhist differ. Such differences are well illustrated by art. For example, Paris in the image Chinese artists different from the Paris of Pissarro and Monet. And nature in modern landscape painters is strikingly different from its depiction of the 13th - 14th centuries. It is no coincidence that they also talk, for example, about the St. Petersburg of Gogol and Dostoevsky or about Bulgakov’s Moscow.
In addition to the national linguistic picture of the world, it is customary to highlight individual (author's) linguistic picture of the world – reflection of the surrounding reality in the worldview linguistic personality, worldview of a linguistic personality through the prism of language.
According to the fair remark of D.S. Likhachev, “and the word, and its meanings, and the concepts of these meanings exist not by themselves in some independent weightlessness, but in a certain human “idiosphere.” Each person has his own individual cultural experience, a stock of knowledge and skills, which determine the richness of the meanings of a word and the richness of the concepts of these meanings, and sometimes, however, their poverty and unambiguity. In essence, each person has his own circle of associations, shades of meaning and, in connection with this, his own characteristics in the potential capabilities of the concept. The less a person’s cultural experience, the poorer not only his language, but also the “conceptosphere” of his vocabulary, both active and passive. What matters is not only broad awareness and a wealth of emotional experience, but also the ability to quickly draw associations from the store of this experience and awareness. Concepts appear in the human mind not only as “hints of possible meanings”, “their algebraic expression”, but also as responses to the previous linguistic experience of a person as a whole - poetic, prosaic, scientific, social, historical, etc.”
According to German philosopher and historian of the early 20th century. Oswald Spengler, the world is, what it means to the being living in it. The world correlated with a certain soul is a world accessible understanding And unique for each individual person. And that is why there are as many worlds as there are waking creatures, and in the existence of each of them, this supposedly unique, autonomous and eternal world turns out to be a constantly new, one-time, never repeated experience.”
An interesting justification for the existence of an individual picture of the world is given by the English philosopher Bertrand Russell in his famous treatise “Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits”: “The collective knows more and less than the individual: it knows, as a collective, all the contents of the encyclopedia and all contributions to the works of scientists institutions, but he does not know those close-to-heart and intimate things that make up the flavor and the very fabric of individual life. When a person says: “I can never convey the horror that I experienced when I saw Buchenwald” or: “No words can express my joy when I saw the sea again after for long years imprisonment," he says something which is true in the strictest and most precise sense of the word: he has through his experience a knowledge which those whose experiences have been different do not possess, and which cannot be fully expressed in words. If he is a first-class artist of words, he can create in the receptive reader a state of consciousness not entirely different from his own, but if he tries to take advantage of scientific methods, the flow of his experience will be hopelessly lost in the dusty desert.”
The most striking manifestation of an individual picture of the world is creative writing: “every literary work embodies the individual author’s way of perceiving and organizing the world, i.e. a particular version of the conceptualization of the world. The author’s knowledge about the world, expressed in literary and artistic form, represents a system of ideas directed to the addressee. In this system, along with universal human knowledge, there are unique, original, and sometimes paradoxical ideas of the author. Thus, the conceptualization of the world in literary text, on the one hand, reflects the universal laws of the world order, on the other hand, individual, sometimes unique, imaginary ideas” [Babenko 2001: 35].
Thus, it is the person who is the bearer of the national mentality and language. A person appears in two forms - man and woman .
This aspect, from the point of view of philosophy and linguistics, began to develop especially intensively in science at the end of the 20th century. and received the names – gender philosophy and gender linguistics, or simply gender (from the Greek genus “genus, born, born”).
