/ Kasevich V.B. "Elements of General Linguistics"
§ 1. Language is the most important means of transmitting and storing information: the main part of the information circulating in society exists precisely in linguistic form.
The transfer of information is one of the most essential types and aspects of communication between people, therefore, according to V.I. Lenin, “language is the most important means human communication"(Complete Works. Vol. 25, p. 258). It follows, in turn, that the central function of language is that of communication, or communicative.
§ 2. It is known that there is another characteristic of language as the immediate reality of thought, as pointed out by K. Marx. Here another function of language is emphasized, namely reflective: thinking, i.e., a person’s reflection of the world around him, is carried out mainly in a linguistic form. Otherwise, we can say that the function of the language is the generation (formation) of information. How do these two functions of the language relate?
It can be argued that the communicative function, or communication function, is primary, and the reflection function is secondary, while both functions are closely related. In fact, reflection of the external world does not in itself require a linguistic form: comparatively developed forms of reflection of the external world already exist in animals; the need for a linguistic form for the "products" of reflection arises precisely because these results of the reflection of mental activity must be communicated, transferred to other members of the human team. The exchange of individual experience, the coordination of actions become possible thanks to the language, which is precisely the tool that allows you to "cast" the results of individual mental activity into generally significant forms.
The foregoing simultaneously means that the very reflective function of the language is called to life by its communicative function: if there was no need for communication, there would be, generally speaking, no need for a person to reflect the outside world in a linguistic form.
§ 3. Since the reflection of the external world is somehow high levels always acts as a generalization in relation to the objects of reality and their properties, one can say, following L.S. Vygotsky, that “the unity of communication and generalization” is realized in the language. This means that, on the one hand, language provides communication; on the other hand, the results of mental activity, activity to generalize the properties of reality, are developed and fixed precisely in the linguistic form. “Every word generalizes” (V.I. Lenin, Complete Collected Works. Vol. 29, p. 246), in other words, every word is the result of the abstract work of thought (the word wood means "a tree in general"), and, conversely, an abstract concept, common to all members of a given collective, requires the presence of a word for its existence.
It can be said that language, together with labor, created a person: “First, labor, and then articulate speech together with it, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the brain of a monkey turned into a human brain” (F. Engels. Dialectics of nature. - K. Marx, F. Engels, Works, ed. 2, v. 20, p. 490).
Without language, communication is impossible - therefore, the existence of society is impossible, and hence the formation of the human personality, the formation of which is conceivable only in a social collective. Outside of language, there are no universally valid concepts and, of course, the existence of developed forms of generalization, abstraction is difficult, that is, again, the formation of a human personality is virtually impossible.
§ 4. The communicative function of language presupposes the semiotic aspect of its consideration, which will be discussed below. The study of the reflective function of language is closely related to the problem of "language and thinking". This problem is not specially considered here (see the chapter "On Psycholinguistics"), however, some remarks in this regard must be made.
§ 4.1. The first remark refers to the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to which a person's thinking is determined by the language in which he speaks, and cannot go beyond this language, since all a person's ideas about the world are expressed through his mother tongue. Opponents /6//7/ of this hypothesis indicate that both human thinking and indirectly its language are determined by reality, the outside world, therefore, assigning the role of a determining factor in the formation of thinking to language is idealism.
The decisive role of external reality in the formation of human thinking, of course, is not subject to discussion, it is indisputable. At the same time, however, one should take into account the activity of the processes of reflection of reality by a person: a person does not passively imprint the material that the outside world “supplies” to him - this material is organized in a certain way, structured by the perceiving subject; a person, as they say, "models" the external world, reflecting it by means of his psyche. This or that method of modeling is determined by the needs of a person, primarily social, industrial. It is quite natural that these needs, connected with the conditions of existence, may be different in different historically formed communities of people. To some extent, the ways of modeling reality differ accordingly. It manifests itself primarily in the language. Consequently, the specificity of the language here - contrary to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - is rather secondary, in any case it is not primary: one cannot say that the specificity of the language determines the specificity of thinking.
This is how things stand in phylogeny, that is, in the history of the formation and development of man (and his language). However, in ontogenesis, i.e., in the individual development of a person, the situation is somewhat different. Each person acquires knowledge about the world, about external reality - reflects external reality to a very large extent not directly, but “through” language. A textbook example: the spectrum of emission and absorption of light waves, which determines color, is, of course, the same everywhere, and the physiological abilities of representatives of different ethnic groups for color perception do not differ; however, it is known that some peoples differ, for example, three colors, while others - seven, etc. It is natural to ask the question: why, say, every African Shona (a southeastern group of Bantu languages) learns to distinguish exactly three primary colors, no more and no less? Obviously, because in his language there are names for these three colors. Here, therefore, the language acts as a ready-made tool for one or another structuring of reality when it is displayed by a person.
Thus, when the question arises why in general in a given language there are so many names of flowers, types of snow, etc., the answer to it is that Russians, French, Indians, Nenets, etc. for their In practice, during the previous centuries (perhaps millennia), roughly speaking, it was “necessary” to distinguish precisely the varieties /7//8/ of the corresponding objects, which was reflected in the language. Another question is this: why does each member of a language community distinguish so many colors, etc., etc.? Here the answer is that this or that way of perceiving external reality is to a certain extent “imposed” on a specific individual by his language, which in this respect is nothing but the crystallized social experience of a given collective, people. From this point of view, therefore, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is quite reasonable.
What has been said above, of course, does not mean in any way that a person is not at all capable of cognizing something for which there is no designation in his language. All development experience various peoples and their languages shows that when the production and cognitive evolution of society creates the need to introduce a new concept, the language never prevents this - to designate a new concept, either an existing word is used with a certain change in semantics, or a new one is formed according to the laws given language. Without this, in particular, it would be impossible to imagine the development of science.
§ 4.2. The second remark that needs to be made in connection with the issue of “language and thinking”, even in the most concise way, concerns the question of how close, how inseparable the connection between language and thinking is.
First of all, it must be said that in ontogenesis (in a child) the development of speech and intellectual development are initially carried out “in parallel”, according to their own laws, while the development of speech turns out to be more connected with the emotional sphere, with the establishment of “pragmatic” and emotional contact with others. Only later, by the age of two, the lines of speech and intellectual development“intersect”, enriching each other: a process begins, as a result of which thought receives a linguistic form and the opportunity to join through the language to the experience accumulated by society; now language begins to serve not only the needs of elementary contact, but also, with the development of the individual, complex forms self-expression, etc.
There is, therefore, a certain autonomy of language and thinking from a genetic point of view (ie, from the point of view of their origin and development), and at the same time their closest interconnection. /8//9/
By own experience Everyone knows that thinking does not always proceed in an expanded speech form. Does this mean that we have evidence (albeit intuitive) of the independence of thought from language? This is complex issue, and so far only a preliminary answer can be given.
Much depends on how we interpret the concept of "thinking". If this term for us means not only abstract thinking, but also the so-called thinking in images, then it is quite natural that this latter - figurative thinking - should not at all necessarily be verbal, verbal. In this sense, nonverbal thinking is obviously quite possible.
Another aspect of the same problem is connected with the existence of such types of thinking, where the speech form is used, but appears as if reduced: only some of the most important elements remain of it, and everything that “goes without saying” does not receive speech form. This process of "compressing" linguistic means is reminiscent of the usual practice in dialogues, especially in the well-known situation, when much that is taken as known is omitted. This is all the more natural in mental monologues, or “monologues for oneself,” that is, when there is no need to take care of achieving understanding on the part of the interlocutor.
Such folded speech, shaping thinking, is called inner speech. It is important to emphasize that inner speech is nevertheless a reduced “ordinary” speech, arises on its basis and is impossible without it (inner speech is absent in a child who has not yet mastered the language sufficiently).
LITERATURE
K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin on the problems of language. - V. A. Zvegintsev. History of Linguistics XIX-XX centuries. in essays and extracts. Part 2, M., 1960.
Vygotsky L. S. Thinking and speech. M., 1934.
General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language. Ed. B. A. Serebrennikova. M., 1970 (Ch. V)./9//10/
29. Thinking and language.
LECTURE: 3 types of thinking: - visual-effective, - visual-figurative, - verbal-logical: forms of verbal-logical m (the highest form of thinking): concept, judgment, conclusion. The concept - vyyal.obshchee sv-va subject, judgment - a form of thought, which by means of communication 2x concepts h / l affirms or denies: S (about what) is P (what they say); conclusion - we, through 2 judgments according to the rules of logical inference, get a new judgment: all students study philosophy + Ivanova student => Ivanova also studies philosophy. INTERNET: A person's thought is always expressed by a language, which in a broad sense is called any sign system that performs the functions of forming, storing and transmitting information and acting as a means of communication between people. Outside of language, obscure motives, volitional impulses, which, although important, can only be conveyed through facial expressions or gestures, are incomparable with speech, which reveals the thoughts, feelings and experiences of a person. However, the relationship between language and thought is quite complex. Correlation of language and thinking. Language and thinking form a unity: without thinking there can be no language, and thinking without language is impossible. Allocate two main aspects of this unity: genetic, which is expressed in the fact that the emergence of language was closely connected with the emergence of thinking, and vice versa; functional- the languages of thought in today's developed state are such a unity, the sides of which mutually presuppose each other. However, this does not mean that language and thinking are identical to each other. Between them there are certain differences. First of all, the relationship between thinking and language in the process of human reflection of the world cannot be represented as a simple correspondence between mental and linguistic structures. Possessing relative independence, language in a specific way fixes the content of mental images in its forms. The specificity of linguistic reflection lies in the fact that the abstracting work of thinking is not directly and immediately reproduced in the forms of language, but is fixed in them in a special way. Therefore, language is often called a secondary, indirect form of reflection, since thinking reflects, cognizes objects and phenomena of objective reality, and language denotes them and expresses them in thought, i.e. they differ in their functions. Secondly, there is also a difference in the structure of language and thought. The basic units of thinking are concepts, judgments and inferences. The components of the language are: phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, sentence (in speech), allophone (sound) and others. Thirdly, in the forms of thinking and language, real processes are reflected in a certain sense simplified, but in each case this happens differently. Thinking captures the contradictory moments of any movement. Developing itself, it reproduces in ideal images with varying degrees depth and detail, gradually approaching the full coverage of objects and their certainty, to the comprehension of the essence. And where consolidation begins, language comes into its own. Language as a form of reflection of the world, like mental images, can represent reality more or less completely, approximately correctly. Fixing the content of mental images in its forms, language singles out and emphasizes in them what was previously done by thinking. However, he does this with the help of his own means, specially developed for this purpose, as a result of which an adequate reproduction of the characteristics of objective reality is achieved in the forms of the language. Fourth, language develops under the influence of objective activity and the traditions of the culture of society, and thinking is associated with the mastery of the laws of logic by the subject, with his cognitive abilities. Therefore, mastering the language, grammatical forms, vocabulary is a prerequisite for the formation of thinking. It is no coincidence that the well-known domestic psychologist L.S. Vygotsky emphasized that thought is never equal to direct meaning words, but it is impossible without words. Language and thought, being in such a contradictory unity, mutually influence each other. On the one hand: thinking is a substantive basis for language, for speech expressions; thinking controls the use of language means in speech activity, speech activity itself, controls the use of language in communication; in its forms, thinking ensures the development and growth of knowledge of the language and the experience of its use; thinking determines the level of language culture; enrichment of thought leads to enrichment of language. On the other hand: language is a means of forming and formulating thoughts in inner speech; language acts in relation to thinking as the main means of calling a thought from a partner, expressing it in external speech, thereby making the thought accessible to other people; language is a means of thinking for modeling thought; language provides thinking with the ability to control thought, as it shapes thought, gives it a form in which thought is easier to process, rebuild, develop; language in relation to thinking acts as a means of influencing reality, a means of direct, and most often indirect transformation of reality through the practical activity of people, controlled by thinking with the help of language; language acts as a means of training, honing, improving thinking. Thus, the relationship between language and thinking is varied and essential. The main thing in this ratio is that just as language is necessary for thinking, so thinking is necessary for language.
So, logic (in the broadest sense of its subject) explores the structure of thinking, reveals the laws underlying it. At the same time, abstract thinking, generally, indirectly and actively reflecting reality, is inextricably linked with language. Linguistic expressions are a reality, the structure and method of using which gives us knowledge not only about the content of thoughts, but also about their forms, about the laws of thinking. Therefore, in the study of linguistic expressions and the relationships between them, logic sees one of its main tasks. And the language as a whole is thus an indirect object of her attention and interest.
A person's thought is always expressed in language as a sign system that performs the functions of forming, storing and transmitting information and acting as a means of communication between people. Language and thinking form a unity: without thinking there can be no language, and thinking without language is impossible. However, this does not mean that language and thinking are identical to each other. There are also certain differences between them.
First, the relationship between thinking and language in the process of human reflection of the world cannot be represented as a simple correspondence between mental and linguistic structures. Possessing relative independence, language in a specific way fixes the content of mental images in its forms. The specificity of linguistic reflection lies in the fact that the abstracting work of thinking is not directly and immediately reproduced in the forms of language, but is fixed in them in a special way. Therefore, language is often called a secondary, indirect form of reflection, since thinking reflects, cognizes objects and phenomena of objective reality, and language denotes them and expresses them in thought, i.e. they differ in their functions.
Secondly, there is a difference in the structure of both language and thinking. The basic units of thinking are concepts, judgments and inferences. The components of the language include: phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, sentence (in speech), allophone (sound) and others.
Thirdly, in the forms of thinking and language, real processes are reflected in a certain sense simplified, but in each case this happens differently. Thinking captures the contradictory moments of any movement. Developing itself, it reproduces in ideal images with varying degrees of depth and detail, gradually approaching the full coverage of objects and their certainty, to the comprehension of essence. And where consolidation begins, language comes into its own. Language as a form of reflection of the world, like mental images, can represent reality more or less completely, approximately correctly. Fixing the content of mental images in its forms, language singles out and emphasizes in them what was previously done by thinking. However, he does this with the help of his own means, specially developed for this purpose, as a result of which an adequate reproduction of the characteristics of objective reality is achieved in the forms of the language.
Fourthly, the language develops under the influence of objective activity and the traditions of the culture of society, and thinking is associated with the mastery of the laws of logic by the subject, with his cognitive abilities.
Therefore, mastering the language, its grammatical forms and vocabulary is a prerequisite for the formation of thinking. It is no coincidence that the well-known domestic psychologist L.S. Vygotsky emphasized that a thought is never equal to the direct meaning of a word, but it is also impossible without words. Language and thought, being in such a contradictory unity, mutually influence each other. On the one hand, thinking is a substantive basis for language, for speech expressions; thinking controls the use of language means in speech activity, speech activity itself, controls the use of language in communication; in its forms, thinking ensures the development and growth of knowledge of the language and the experience of its use; thinking determines the level of language culture; enrichment of thought leads to enrichment of language.
On the other hand, language is a means of forming and formulating thoughts in inner speech; language acts in relation to thinking as the main means of calling a thought from a partner, expressing it in external speech, thereby making the thought accessible to other people; language is a means of thinking for modeling thought; language provides thinking with the ability to control thought, as it shapes thought, gives it a form in which thought is easier to process, rebuild, develop; language in relation to thinking acts as a means of influencing reality, a means of direct, and most often indirect transformation of reality through the practical activity of people, controlled by thinking with the help of language; language acts as a means of training, honing, improving thinking.
Thus, the relationship between language and thinking is varied and essential. The main thing in this ratio is that just as language is necessary for thinking, so thinking is necessary for language.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Introduction
1. About the concepts of "language" and "national language"
2. Language as a reflection of national thinking
2.1 Correlation between language and thought
2.2 The language and way of thinking of the people
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Language is the beginning of all beginnings. When we begin to do something, we first comprehend it in words. The beginning of the 21st century is characterized in linguistics by significant changes and new directions in the study of the language at various levels.
Among other things, the problem of the relationship between culture, language and consciousness is comprehensively discussed: all kinds of studies of the linguistic picture of the world among speakers of a certain language are carried out, associative dictionaries of different languages are created that provide rich material for studying the features of the perception of reality within a particular culture, a linguoculturological direction in the study of language as an expression of a special national mentality.
The problem of the correlation and interconnection of language, culture, ethnicity is an interdisciplinary problem, the solution of which is possible only through the efforts of several sciences - from philosophy and sociology to ethnolinguistics and linguoculturology.
For example, questions of ethnic linguistic thinking are the prerogative of linguistic philosophy; the specifics of ethnic, social or group communication in the linguistic aspect is studied by psycholinguistics, etc.
A characteristic sign of the development of modern humanities is the turn of the problems of fundamental research towards anthropocentrism, which is manifested, in particular, in the growing interest in the problems of the relationship between language and thinking, including the national language and national thinking.
In a word, the idea expressed at the beginning of the last century by L.V. peoples representing a certain unity ... ". AT present work we will consider language as a reflection of national thinking.
1. About conceptI"language" and "national language"
First of all, let's consider what is "language" and "national language".
Language, a system of discrete (articulate) sound signs that spontaneously arose in human society and is developing, designed for the purposes of communication and capable of expressing the totality of a person's knowledge and ideas about the world.
The sign of spontaneous emergence and development, as well as the boundlessness of the area of application and the possibilities of expression distinguishes language from the so-called artificial or formalized languages that are used in other branches of knowledge (for example, information languages, programming language, information retrieval language), and from various systems alarms based on language(for example, Morse code, traffic signs, etc.).
On the basis of the ability to express abstract forms thinking(concept, judgment) and the property of discreteness associated with this ability (internal segmentation of the message) language qualitatively different from the so-called. languageanimals, which is a set of signals that transmit reactions to situations and regulate the behavior of animals in certain conditions.
Language is an integral and most important part of any national culture, a full acquaintance with which necessarily involves not only the study of the material component of this culture, not only knowledge of its historical, geographical, economic and other determinants, but also an attempt to penetrate into the way of thinking of the nation, an attempt to look at the world through the eyes of the bearers of this culture, from their “point of view”.
It is the language that is the main unifying feature of the nation, since no common ideas, cultural values and joint economy can exist without a common understanding of the verbal signs used in communication.
Language arises simultaneously with the nation, is its creation, as well as the organ of the original thinking of the nation. As the founder of linguistics W. Humboldt wrote, "language is the breath, the very soul of the nation."
Most of the circumstances that accompany the life of a nation - habitats, climate, religion, state structure, laws and customs, - from the nation itself can be separated to a certain extent. And only language exists as a living, native language only in the minds of the nation. It is in the language that the entire national character is imprinted, in it, as in the means of communication of a given people, individualities disappear and the common is manifested.
The presence of a single national language provides society with the convenience of communication in various fields of activity - from the domestic sphere to production.
First of all, the national language creates convenience for the daily life of every person. In whatever city a person may be, he can easily ask any question and understand the answer without resorting to knowledge of other languages, without experiencing difficulties due to differences in pronunciation or the meaning of words, which would be inevitable when communicating in a dialect.
The national literary language has uniform norms for all speakers of it, no matter in what area they live. The presence of a single national language creates great convenience for official business correspondence of institutions and enterprises, ensures the clarity of interaction between central and local authorities.
A single language is necessary for the rapid dissemination of technical achievements, the development of production, and the economic integrity of the country. From technical documents the highest level of unity of terminology is required, so it is fixed special standards. A true and deep understanding of works of literature is impossible without a good knowledge of the national language.
The national language is a means of developing all kinds of art, its unity is of great importance for education, for the media, in a word, for the entire life of the nation.
Summarizing the above, we note that in relation to the nation, the language plays a consolidating role, i.e. maintains its unity, serves as a means of creating a national culture and its transmission to the next generations.
2. Language as a reflection of national thinking
The language of the people is the most important component of its national culture, which is formed along with the formation of an ethnos, being a prerequisite and a condition. The sheer number of languages in the world reflects the infinite variety of ways of thinking.
2.1 Correlation between language and thought
language thinking sound communication
Acquaintance with any culture, its study will always be incomplete if in the field of vision of a person who has turned to this culture, there is no such fundamental component as the way of thinking of the nation, the national logic of world perception and worldview.
Each person belongs to a certain national culture, including national traditions, language, history, literature. As E. Sapir wrote: "Language is a guide that is becoming increasingly important as a guiding principle in the scientific study of culture." Sapir E. Position of linguistics as a science. - In the book: V.A. Zvegintsev. History of Linguistics of the 19th and 20th Centuries in Essays and Extracts, Part II. - M., 1960. - S. 177 and 186.
Language is closely connected with the thinking and consciousness of a person as a whole. Thinking, which, although it may occur in a figurative or intuitive form,as its highest and universal form has the form of a verbal, linguistic.
By virtue of necessity, thinking is always connected with units of language; without them, thought will not be able to achieve distinctness and clarity, representation will not be able to become a concept. The word arises on the basis of the subjective perception of objects of the external world by a person; it is an imprint not of the object in itself, but of its image created by this object in our consciousness.
The thought perceived by the language becomes an object for our soul and therefore produces an influence on it already from the outside. Thought, having become a word, comes into contact with the external world. Thus, language connects the outer world of a person with the inner one in both directions.
Language is one of those phenomena that stimulate human spiritual power to constant activity. The need of thinking for the concept and the striving for its clarification that is conditioned by this must precede the word, which is the expression of the complete clarity of the concept. Therefore, the rules of verbal communication recommend that a person first clearly understand his thought, make sure the words chosen are accurate, and only after that speak out loud. You should not take part in the discussion of topics on which a person does not have sufficient knowledge. Also, do not use words in your speech, in exact meaning which one is not sure.
Thinking develops and updates much faster than language, but without language, thinking is only a “thing for itself”, and a thought not expressed by language is not that clear, distinct thought that helps a person to comprehend the phenomena of reality, it is rather a foresight, not actual knowledge.
If thinking cannot do without language, then language without thinking is impossible. We speak and write thinking, we try to express our thoughts more accurately and clearly in speech. Even a reciter reading someone's work, or an announcer reading the latest news, do not just utter sounds, like parrots, but speak. The same applies to quotations, the use of proverbs and aphorisms in ordinary speech, they are not invented by the speaker, but their choice, the meaning embedded in them is a trace and consequence of the speaker's thought.
The thinking of a person (both an individual and the entire human race) is in constant development, opening up new aspects of the surrounding world. The complication of knowledge about the world requires the language to be more and more flexible in denoting new concepts about objects, properties of objects, phenomena and relationships.
In order to provide thinking with the proper language means, the language has to improve vocabulary and grammar. Therefore, new meanings of words are formed in the language, new words are created, words that are similar in sound are differentiated in meaning, and the stylistic differentiation of vocabulary is fixed. In grammar, the language can give new meanings to syntactic constructions, fix some phrases as stable turns, turning them into phraseological units or analytical forms of expressing morphological meanings.
The success of all speech-thinking activity depends on how quickly, flexibly and successfully the language responds to new needs of thinking.
The success of a person's verbal thinking depends on how well this person knows his native language, how well he understands the meaning of words and grammatical structures. The individual always has a good opportunity to develop his language ability, turning to the collective experience of the nation through penetration into the depth of the meanings of words, into the richness of the native language.
The success of the speech thinking of a nation depends on the level of culture in a given society, on the degree of processing literary language and the degree of prevalence of the literary language in the speech of individual members of the language community, on the level of mutual understanding of the intelligentsia and other social groups.
A language that quickly responds to the needs of thinking contributes to an even greater flowering of thought, allows you to make major intellectual discoveries and spread high culture in wide public circles. If the language fails to find convenient and generally understandable ways of expressing more complex thoughts, it becomes a brake on the way of understanding the world and spreading knowledge in this society. It is, of course, not the language that is to blame for this, but the attitude of the speakers towards it, disrespect for the classical literary tradition, philological science and the humanities in general, indifference to the issues of the culture of speech, the cultivation of idle, aimless chatter, a lightweight, thoughtless attitude to the word. Thus, thinking is the source of the development of language, and language, in turn, influences the course of development of thinking. This is the thought-forming role of language.
2.2 Language andway of thinking people
Based on the fact that every language is a means of thinking, and these means are different for people who speak different languages, then we can assume that the "picture of the world", i.e. mentality, representatives of different human communities are different: the greater the difference in language systems, the more so in the "pictures of the world".
If we talk about language as a way of national worldview, then it should be noted that the word is not an image of a thing, it is distinguished by the ability to represent a thing from different points of view in that it has its own sensual image. This quality of the word makes the language not just a sign system, but a special, universal for a particular nation, form of worldview.
The language reflects the life and characteristics of the character of the people, their thinking. Here is a simple example. In the minds of most Russians, life in Europe is a complete fairy tale. In Europe, heaven on earth and everyone lives there like Hollywood stars- in pleasure and luxury. Therefore, girls from Russia are willing to marry Europeans. But very often living together does not work with a foreigner. Why? It seems that she went to courses, and mastered a foreign language. Foreign language she studied, but she did it, guided only by the desire to master new communicative possibilities, unaware of the connection between the language and the culture and character of the people. Language is the life and culture of a person, the style of his behavior. Yes, there is a high standard of living in Europe, but nevertheless, luxury, unjustified expenses, and the desire for idleness are alien to Europeans. They live in prosperity, but economically. In an international family, it is much more difficult to achieve mutual understanding: very often cultural differences, stereotypes of behavior and thinking, and the lack of a common language stand as an insurmountable wall.
Language plays a special role in the formation of personality. A person, his spiritual world, is largely determined by the language in which he grew up. The American researcher of Indian languages, Benjamin Whorf, put forward a hypothesis according to which a person dismembers and cognizes nature in the direction suggested by his native language. Indeed, like us residents middle lane, denote the types of ice? Strong and not strong. But in the Saami language, who live on the Kola Peninsula, there are about 20 names for ice and 10 for cold!
Undoubtedly, the language reflects both the way of life and the way of thinking of the people. A Russian wife sees the world differently than a French husband, because she thinks in Russian. The language we speak not only expresses our thoughts, but also largely determines their course. Language affects the content of human thinking. Two people of different nationalities can become eyewitnesses of the same phenomenon, but what they see is just a kaleidoscope of impressions until consciousness streamlines it. Ordering happens with the help of language. Therefore, observing the same phenomenon, the Russian and the French see different things, give different assessments.
People who speak different languages see the world through different eyes. A Frenchman cannot perceive and feel the world the way a Russian does, because he has different language means. As the Russian writer Sergei Dovlatov said, “90% of a person’s personality consists of language,” and one cannot but agree with this.
In the era of active interethnic communication, the problem of the relationship between language and thinking, language and culture, the spirit of the people becomes especially acute. Issues such as the essence of the language, its functional palette, historical purpose and fate are closely intertwined with the fate of the people. Unfortunately, until now, studies of linguistic phenomena in linguistics are, as a rule, very narrow in nature. In general, language continues to be seen only as a tool for the exchange of information. Aspects of the relationship between language and thinking, language and national culture have not yet become the subject of study by our linguists. The complexity of the problem of language is caused by its breadth - as we see, it has not only proper linguistic, but also cognitive aspects, and through them moral and political ones. The problem of language is not limited to questions of linguistics and goes to philosophy and politics, since language is organically linked with national culture, psychology and spirituality; language is a spokesman for the worldview or mentality of the people, its system of values, traditions, and customs.
Since the meanings of words are associated with concepts, a certain mental content is fixed in the language, which turns into a hidden (internal) part of the meaning of words, to which speakers do not pay attention due to the automatism of using the language. Language could not serve as a means of communication if the meaning of each word in each case of its use became a matter of dispute. At the same time, language is a nationwide means of communication, and reflects not the worldview of any social group, but common features perception of the world by the entire speaking collective, i.e. nation. Thus, the languages of different peoples reflect their national culture, their national view of the world.
W. Humboldt wrote that “different languages are for nations the organs of their original thinking and perception” and that “ big number objects were created by the words denoting them, and only in them does it find its being. Humboldt V. Selected Works on Linguistics. - M., 1984. - S.324. Those. items real world they do not become objects of thought themselves, they cannot get inside thought, they appear to thinking as a language, which, although it develops itself by the power of thought, inevitably has a form and represents the world in certain form. The perception and understanding of not only abstract phenomena, but also concrete objects depends on which way out of the many possible ones the language has designated them.
Language always acts as an intermediary between the world and a person, draws a certain linguistic picture of the world to a person. All this does not mean at all that a person is a prisoner of the national language. A social worldview is being built over the linguistic worldview social groups, individual worldview of a person. The linguistic picture of the world is complemented by a cultural, religious, philosophical, scientific picture of the world. However, the creation of these paintings requires intellectual effort from a person. "The path from the real world to the concept and further to verbal expression is different for different peoples, which is due to differences in history, geography, the characteristics of the life of these peoples and, accordingly, differences in the development of their social consciousness." Ter-Minasova S.G. Languages intercultural communication. - M., 2000. - P.40. It turns out that language does not reflect reality directly, but through two stages: from the real world to thinking and from thinking to language. And although thinking was ahead of the language, its results, taking shape in the language, are somewhat modified (thought cannot be fully reflected in the word). Therefore, language becomes a separate participant in communication and the further development of thinking, it cannot be a simple mold for thought, it can simultaneously hide part of thought and supplement thought with language associations.
Thus, the language of the people is the most important component of its national culture, which is formed along with the formation of an ethnos, being a prerequisite and condition for its existence.
The above is of practical importance.
Firstly, it is necessary to take care of the native language, which preserves the national cultural tradition, transmits the moral values of the people to new generations.
Secondly, only knowing the richness of the native language well, one can easily navigate in new information constantly coming to a person, to distinguish between words and the content behind them. Sometimes outwardly brilliant, attractive words carry emptiness or even advice that is harmful to a person. On the other hand, outwardly simple, ordinary words can be filled with a deep and reasonable meaning.
Conclusion
Thus, language is an integral part of national culture. Language is closely connected with the thinking and consciousness of a person as a whole.
National features of thinking and behavior are fixed in the signs of the language and thus reflected in it. Language, in turn, affects the understanding of the world and in the process of organizing the process of education, upbringing, development, it is necessary to rely on these characteristics of the trainees.
Being connected with the thinking and psychology of a person, his life and public consciousness, the history of peoples and their customs, reflecting the national specifics and culture of peoples, being a form of expression for literature and folklore as art forms, being the main source of knowledge about inner world people, having a certain sensually perceived form language is a source of indirect data for the humanities and natural sciences: philosophy, logic, history, ethnography, sociology, jurisprudence, psychology and psychiatry, literary criticism, computer science, semiotics, mass communication theory, brain physiology, acoustics, etc.
Bibliography
1. Bogus, M.B. Language and mentality in educational process/ M.B. Bogus // Basic Research. - 2008. - No. 1 - S. 86-88.
2. Ilyenkov, E.V. On the relationship between thinking and language / E.V. Ilyenkov // Almanac "East". - 2003. - No. 9.
3. Kornilov, O.A. Linguistic pictures of the world as derivatives of national mentalities / OA Kornilov. - M.: KDU, 2002. - 350 p.
4. Maslova, V.A. Introduction to cognitive linguistics / V.A. Maslova. - M.: Flinta, 2007. - 296 p.
5. Melnikova, A.A. Language and national character. The relationship between the structure of language and mentality / A.A. Melnikov. - St. Petersburg: Speech, 2003 - 237p.
6. Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary- Ed. E.F. Gubsky. - M.: Publishing House Tsifra, 2002. - P.263.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
Language is the most important means of human communication. A few words about linguistics. Language from the point of view of the theory of signs. Letter and its meaning. Sign properties. Types of sign systems. Specificity of language as a sign system.
term paper, added 04/25/2006
Theory of eloquence, orators Ancient Greece and ancient rome. Model of speech communication, ways or types of reading. Language as the most important means of human communication, the relationship between language and speech. Varieties of the national language. Types and techniques of listening.
course of lectures, added 10/13/2010
Relationship between language and thought. The concept and basis of visual-sensory thinking. The essence of language as a system of verbal expression of thoughts. Contrasting points of view of different linguists on the degree of relationship between language and thinking.
abstract, added 12/09/2010
Russian language is National language great Russian people. With the help of the Russian language, you can express the subtlest shades of thought, reveal the deepest feelings. Linguistic taste, like the whole cultural image of a person, is the result of experience, life.
lecture, added 03/26/2007
Language as a multifunctional system dealing with the creation, storage and transmission of information. Characterization of the main functions of the language as a sign system. The main components of the language, the facets of the linguistic sign. Language as a system of signs and ways of their connection.
test, added 02/16/2015
The nature and essence of language. Naturalistic (biological) approach to language. Psychic approach to language. Language is a social phenomenon. Language as a system of signs. Language functions according to Buhler. Functions of the language according to the Reformed. Theory of language, orientation of language signs.
abstract, added 01/08/2009
The essence of linguistic competence. The evolution of the language in connection with the change in human consciousness and thinking. The close relationship between language and the history of society. Addiction structural features individual languages from specific forms of culture of a given people.
abstract, added 10/29/2012
The essence of the representation of the sign in the language. The difference between linguistic signs and "natural signs", typology, types of meanings. Glossematic theory of language. Random, conditional nature of the connection between the signified and the signifier. Image of a sign as a sign system of a language.
abstract, added 12/21/2013
Philosophical foundations of Humboldt's linguistic concept. Definition of the essence of the language. The doctrine of inner form language. The problem of the correlation of language and thinking. The doctrine of the origin and development of language. Morphological classification of languages. Antinomies of language.
abstract, added 03/31/2008
The single language of the Russian nation, the language of international communication in modern world. The growing influence of the Russian language on other languages. A wonderful language of the world in terms of the variety of grammatical forms and the richness of the dictionary, the richest fiction.
LANGUAGE AS THE MOST IMPORTANT MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
AND AS A DIRECT REALITY OF THOUGHT
(Kasevich of General Linguistics. 1977)
Language is the most important means of transmitting and storing information: the main part of the information circulating in society exists precisely in linguistic form.
The transfer of information is one of the most important types and aspects of communication between people, so language is the most important means of human communication. It follows, in turn, that the central function of language is that of communication, or communicative.
It is known that there is another characteristic of language as the immediate reality of thought. Here another function of language is emphasized, namely reflective (mental): thinking, i.e., a person’s reflection of the world around him, is carried out mainly in a linguistic form. Otherwise, we can say that the function of the language is the generation (formation) of information. How do these two functions of the language relate?
It can be argued that the communicative function, or communication function, is primary, and the reflection function is secondary, while both functions are closely related. In fact, reflection of the external world does not in itself require a linguistic form: comparatively developed forms of reflection of the external world already exist in animals; the need for a linguistic form for the “products” of reflection arises precisely because these results of the reflection of mental activity must be communicated, transferred to other members of the human collective. The exchange of individual experience, the coordination of actions become possible thanks to the language, which is precisely the tool that allows you to "cast" the results of individual mental activity into generally significant forms.
The foregoing simultaneously means that the very reflective function of language is brought to life by its communicative function: if there were no need for communication, there would be, generally speaking, no need for a person to reflect the external world in a linguistic form.
Since the reflection of the external world at any higher levels always acts as a generalization in relation to the objects of reality and their properties, it can be said, following the fact that in the language "the unity of communication and generalization" is realized. This means that, on the one hand, language provides communication; on the other hand, the results of mental activity, activity to generalize the properties of reality, are developed and fixed precisely in the linguistic form. Every word generalizes, in other words, every word is the result of the abstracting work of thought (the word wood means "a tree in general"), and, conversely, an abstract concept, common to all members of a given collective, requires the presence of a word for its existence.
We can say that language, together with labor, created man: “First labor, and then articulate speech together with it, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the brain of a monkey turned into a human brain” (F. Engels. Dialectics of nature).
Without language, communication is impossible - therefore, the existence of society is impossible, and hence the formation of a human personality, the formation of which is conceivable only in a social collective. There are no universally valid concepts outside the language, and, of course, the existence of developed forms of generalization, abstraction is difficult, i.e., again, the formation of a human personality is virtually impossible.
The communicative function of language involves the semiotic (sign) aspect of its consideration. The study of the reflective function of language is closely related to the problem "Language and Thought". Consider the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to which a person’s thinking is determined by the language he speaks, and he cannot go beyond this language, since all a person’s ideas about the world are expressed through his native language. Opponents of this hypothesis point out that both a person's thinking and indirectly his language are determined by reality, the outside world, therefore, assigning the role of a determining factor in the formation of thinking to language is idealism.
The decisive role of external reality in the formation of human thinking, of course, is not subject to discussion. She is undeniable. However, one should take into account activity the processes of reflection of reality by a person: a person does not passively capture the material that the outside world “supplies” to him, this material is organized in a certain way, structured by the perceiving subject; a person, as they say, "models" the external world, reflecting it by means of his psyche. This or that method of modeling is determined by the needs of a person, primarily social, industrial. It is quite natural that these needs, connected with the conditions of existence, may be different in different historically formed communities of people. To some extent, the ways of modeling reality differ accordingly. It manifests itself primarily in the language. Consequently, the specificity of the language here - contrary to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - is rather secondary, in any case, it is not primary: it cannot be said that the specificity of the language determines the specificity of thinking.
This is how it is in phylogeny, i.e. in the history of the formation and development of man (and his language). However, in ontogeny, i.e., in the individual development of a person, the situation is somewhat different. Each person acquires knowledge about the world, about external reality - reflects external reality to a very large extent not directly, but “through” language. A textbook example: the spectrum of emission and absorption of light waves, which determines color, is, of course, the same everywhere, and the physiological abilities of representatives of different ethnic groups for color perception do not differ; however, it is known that some peoples differ, for example, three colors, while others have seven or more. It is natural to ask the question: why, say, every African Shona(southeastern group of languages Bantu) learns to distinguish exactly three primary colors, no more and no less? Obviously, because in his language there are names for these three colors. Here, therefore, the language acts as a ready-made tool for one or another structuring of reality when it is displayed by a person.
Thus, when the question arises why in general in a given language there are so many names of flowers, types of snow, etc., the answer to it is that Russians, French, Indians, Nenets, etc. for their In practice, during the previous centuries (perhaps millennia), roughly speaking, it was “needed” to distinguish precisely the varieties of the corresponding objects, which was reflected in the language. Another question is this: why does each member of a language community distinguish so many colors, etc., etc.? Here the answer is that this or that way of perceiving external reality is to a certain extent "imposed" on a particular individual by his language. In this respect, language is nothing but the crystallized social experience of a given collective, people. From this point of view, therefore, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is quite reasonable.
The above, of course, does not mean in any way that a person is not at all capable of cognizing something for which there is no designation in his language. The entire experience of the development of various peoples and their languages shows that when the production and cognitive evolution of society creates the need to introduce a new concept, the language never prevents this - to designate a new concept, either an existing word is used with a certain change in semantics, or a new one is formed according to the laws of a given language. Without this, in particular, it would be impossible to imagine the development of science.
One more remark must be made in connection with the problems of "language and thinking". Even with the most concise consideration of this problem, the question arises of how close, how inseparable the connection between language and thinking is.
First of all, it must be said that in ontogeny (in a child) the development of speech and intellectual development are initially carried out “in parallel”, according to their own laws, while the development of speech turns out to be more connected with the emotional sphere, with the establishment of “pragmatic” contact with others. Only later, by the age of two, do the lines of speech and intellectual development “intersect”, enriching each other. A process begins, as a result of which thought receives a linguistic form and the opportunity to join through the language to the accumulated social experience; now language begins to serve not only the needs of elementary contact, but also, with the development of the individual, complex forms of self-expression, etc.
There is, therefore, a certain autonomy of language and thinking from the genetic point of view (ie, from the point of view of their origin and development), and at the same time their closest interconnection.
From our own experience, everyone knows that thinking does not always proceed in an expanded speech form. Does this mean that we have evidence (albeit intuitive) of the independence of thought from language? This is a difficult question, and so far only a preliminary answer can be given.
Much depends on how we interpret the concept of "thinking". If this term for us means not only abstract thinking, but also the so-called thinking in images, then it is quite natural that this latter - imaginative thinking - should not at all necessarily be verbal, verbal. In this sense, nonverbal thinking is obviously quite possible.
Another aspect of the same problem is related to the existence of such types of thinking, where the speech form is used, but appears as if reduced: only some of the most important elements do not remain, and everything that “goes without saying” does not receive speech form. This process of "compressing" linguistic means is reminiscent of the usual practice in dialogues, especially in the well-known situation, when much that is taken as known is omitted. This is all the more natural in mental monologues, or “monologues for oneself,” that is, when there is no need to care about achieving understanding on the part of the interlocutor.
Such folded speech, which shapes thinking, is called inner speech. It is important to emphasize that inner speech is nevertheless a reduced “ordinary” speech, arises on its basis and is impossible without it (inner speech is absent in a child who has not yet mastered the language sufficiently).
Questions for the article
1. How do the basic functions of the language relate to each other? Comment on the statement of a famous Russian psychologist: “the unity of communication and generalization” is realized in the language.
2. What is the essence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
3. Answer, what is the interaction of language and thinking in phylogenesis (the history of the formation and development of a person and his language) and in ontogenesis (individual development of a person)?
4. What is "inner speech"? How is it different from normal speech?
