The linguocultural landscape of the world and its reflection in language

By the end of the twentieth century, linguistics began to assume that "language is not only connected with culture, but also a means by which it grew out of culture and expressed it." At the same time, language is a means of creating, developing, preserving (in the form of texts) and an integral part of culture. Because language creates the material and spiritual works of culture. Based on this idea, linguoculturology, formed over thousands of years, emerged as a new, specialized branch of science in the 1990s. Linguoculturology is a product of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics, which has been evolving over the last decade. By the beginning of the 21st century, linguoculturology has become one of the leading fields in world linguistics. Linguoculturology is the study of folk culture that is reflected and strengthened in language and discourse. It primarily studies the myths, legends, customs, traditions, rituals, customs, symbols, etc. of a particular culture. These concepts are cultural in nature and are reinforced in language in the form of everyday and ritual interactions. According to V. N. Telia, linguoculturology primarily studies living communicative processes and the relationship of the language expressions used in them with the mentality of the people in synchronous movement. Linguoculturology is the study of language as a cultural phenomenon, and the interrelated language and culture are its subject. Consequently, V.N. Telia writes: “Linguoculturology is the study of the human, more precisely, the cultural factor in man. This means that the Center for Linguoculturology is a set of achievements inherent in the anthropological paradigm of man as a cultural phenomenon. ”1 According to GG Slishkin, “Linguoculturology focuses on the human factor, more specifically on the cultural factor in man. The fact that the center of linguoculturology is a cultural phenomenon shows that the science of man belongs to an anthropological paradigm. ” ”2. N. Alefirenko describes lingvoculturology as follows: - Linguoculturology is closely connected with linguistics and cultural studies, it has a synthesizing property; - The main focus of linguoculturology is on cultural evidence interpreted in language; - Linguoculturology is a branch of linguistics, so the results of its research can be used in the teaching of native and foreign languages; - The main directions of linguocultural research: a) linguistic personality; b) language is a system of semiotic embodiment of cultural values.

Historically, the idea of the linguistic landscape of the world has been based on the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt and Neo-Humboldt on the internal form of language, as well as the hypothesis of linguistic relativity or the linguistic determinism of Edward Sephir and Benjamin Worf. defines the world around us depends on the language in which thinking is done.

V. von Humboldt was the first to focus on the national structure of language and thought. He asserted that “different languages are a unique organ of thought and perception for a nation” (V. von Humboldt 1985: 324). V. von Humboldt sees language as an “intermediate world” between thought and reality, while language embodies a separate national worldview. The scientist emphasizes the difference between the concepts of “intermediate world” (German: Zvischenwelt) and “worldview” (German: Weltbild). Humboldt’s “intermediate world” is a static product of linguistic activity that determines a person’s perception of reality. Its unity is a “spiritual object” - a concept. The worldview is a moving, dynamic being that is constantly changing because it is really created by language interference. Its unity is the act of speech (W. von Humboldt 1984: 48). Thus, language plays a major role in shaping both concepts: "Language is the organ that shapes thought, so it plays a leading role in shaping the human personality, shaping the system of concepts in it, passing on the accumulated experience to generations" (V. von Humboldt ) 1985: 78).

The term “linguistic landscape of the world” (Weltbild or Weltbild der Sprache in German) was coined by the German linguist Leo Weisgerber. Recognized as the most influential representative and leader in the field of linguistics, this expert emphasized the active role of language in human thought and practice, saying that "language is not a product of activity (Ergon), but activity (Energy)" (Humboldt 1984: 70)) developed by L. Weisgerber proposed an “energetic” approach to language learning, which involves discovery in the language of power, so that it actively influences both the cognitive and practical activities of its speakers. A similar approach to language learning involves studying the effects of language. In modern terminology, this can be interpreted as an approach to the study of the cognitive and pragmatic functions of language. L. Weisgerber identified these functions not from the linguistic landscape of the whole world, but from one of its aspects - idiotic (i.e., a real existing character system used in some society, at some time, and in some space), this is a clear implementation. language features in general). However, language integrates a view of not only the world, but the whole world into its component. In other words, an image of the world structured in a particular language is a synthesis of general knowledge about the world with idiots. The source of the first is objective reality, the source of the second is a national view of it. Using the category “Worten der Welt”, L. Weisgerber commented on an “energetic” approach to the study of the lexical landscape of the world, which literally means “deceiving the world”. The ungodliness of the world (in other words, verbal discourse) involves dividing reality into specific parts through words. Languages differ not only in the number of words they contain, but also in their internal forms. And this, in turn, means that not only do all languages divide the world into the same segments between different languages, but there is a quantitative symmetry that differs from each other in terms of quality. Leo Weisgerber also tried to solve the problem of the ratio of scientific and linguistic images of the world. Here he followed in the footsteps of the German philosopher and culturologist Ernst Kassirer, who believed that the work of a scientist, as well as to achieve it, should liberate the language he understood as the object of his research. E. Cassirer wrote: "philosophical knowledge is first and foremost compelled by the chains of language and myth, which must remove the witnesses of human imperfection before it can turn thoughts into pure ether." (Cashier). The cashier acknowledged the superiority of linguistic consciousness over scientific consciousness. However, he acknowledged this only in the early stages of the scientist’s work, which focused on the study of a particular subject. Thus, he wrote, " the starting point of all theoretical knowledge is the world formed by language: neither the naturalist, nor the historian, nor even the philosopher sees objects as language first presents them." It is important to pay attention to the word “in the beginning” here, as well as to emphasize that every scientist should try to overcome the power over his or her research consciousness. In his words, “scientific knowledge nurtured through linguistic concepts cannot attempt to abandon them because it requires necessity and universality, which languages may and may not be compatible as carriers of different worldviews” (Kasserer), Kassirer Tilda explained the idea that many ideas about a fortified world are unacceptable in science.