XII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2020

All properties of objects are considered and described in language only during functioning or, in other words, during its use by a person. Characteristics of the subject, being insignificant during functioning, are ignored in language too. Language images of objects, in comparison with physical, seem reduced enough, “defective” as they are seen by the native speaker only as comparable with person and adapted to his life.

Head of The Institute of Basic Researches in Princeton at the end of 40^th years of the XX century R.Oppenheimer is convinced that the decision of many problems included in the field of theoretical physics is connected with activity of the person. The most well – known psychologists, cybernetics and linguists (R.Yakobson, N.Khomsky) have been involved in discussion of this problem. Scientists came to a uniform conclusion that behind all scientific problems, from positions of whatever science they would be considered there is a person and its consciousness. So the anthropocentric paradigm of scientific knowledge, which addresses to research cognitive and mental processes, arises in the big science [3; 6 - 7].

Anthropocentric paradigm is a switching interest of the researcher from objects of knowledge on the subject, i.e. the person in language and language in the person is analyzed as, according to I.A.Boduen de Courtene, «language exists only in individual consciousness, only in an individual soul, only in mentality of individuals or in peculiarities, making the given language society». During formation of a new scientific paradigm the thesis which has been put forward by L.Vitgenstein has been proclaimed: «the World is set of the facts, instead of things». Language has been gradually reoriented on the fact, event, and the person of the native speaker has moved to the center of attention. As R.M.Frumkina marks, in anthropocentric paradigm ways of designing of a subject of linguistic research have changed, the approach to a choice of the general principles and methods of research has changed too, competing meta languages of the linguistic description have appeared [1].

The idea of anthropocentricity of language is possible to consider conventional: for many language constructions representation about the person represent itself as a natural reference point. The given scientific paradigm has put new problems in research of language, demands new techniques of its description, new approaches of the analysis of its units and categories.

Anthropocentric paradigm deduces the person on the first place, thus language is considered as the main constructing characteristic of the person, its major component. The human intelligence, as well as the person itself, is inconceivable outside of language and language ability as abilities to generation and perception of speech. «If language did not interfere in all thought processes if it was not capable to create new mental spaces the person would not leave for frameworks of directly observable things» [2; 8]. The text created by the person, reflects movement of a human idea, builds the possible worlds, embodying in it dynamics of an idea and ways of its representation by means of language. It is necessary to notice, that in pictures of the world of investigated languages anthropocentricity is shown not to the same extent.

The somatic code of culture, alongside with spatial, temporary, subject and spiritual codes, is one of base codes in which naïve representations of different ethnoses about a universe are fixed. The somatic code of culture concerns universals. However display of its elements in language, relative density of each of them in the certain culture, and also metaphors in which they are realized, according to V.V.Krasnykh, «are always national determined and caused by concrete culture» [2].

The native picture of the world is reflected in language and develops as the answer to practical needs of the person as necessary cognitive basis of its adaptation to the world. “Pragmatical egocentrism structures activity in a way that it was optimum built into cognitive field of the person, was convenient as much as possible” [1; 69].

The emotive – estimated attitude to subjects and the phenomena is determined by outlook of people – native speaker, its cultural – historical experience, system of criteria of an estimation existing in given society. Developed at concrete folk – carrier of a concrete language the system of steady representations about standards or masters is “an anthopometrical position which serves as that filter through which as through color glass, the world is perceived” [3; 39]. The cultural – national originality of criteria of an estimation is shown, first of all, in the form of its anthropocentricity, i.e. in such commensurable order object of an estimation and some standard in which on the foreground the properties attributed by the person (usually on its own and similarity) are put forward. Besides the principle anthropomethricity creates a line of demarcation between actually estimated and expressively painted meaning.

Литература

Зыкова И.В. Практический курс английской лексикологии = A Practical Course in English Lexicology: Учеб. пособие для студ. лингв. вузов и фак. ин. Языков / Ирина Владимировна Зыкова. – М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2006. – 288 с.

Красных В.В. Этнопсихолингвистика и лингвокультуралогия. М.: Гнозис, 2002. -284 с.

Маслова В.А. Лингвокультуралогия: Учеб. пособие для студ. высш. учеб. заведений. –М.: Издательский центр «Академия», 2001. -208 с.