XIII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2021

Cognitive linguistics creates its own terminological apparatus, a system of concepts that are of particular importance for the development of a consistent discourse of cognitivism in linguistics. The most important concepts of cognitive linguistics are such concepts as "concept", "conceptualization", "language picture of the world", "standard", "behavior model", "culture", "frame", "Gestalt", etc. In the literature of the question in the last two decades, these concepts are widely discussed, so there is no need for a detailed analysis of them. However, some concepts of cognitive linguistics require clarification, since the analysis of existing views indicates their ambiguity.

The most important concept of cognitive linguistics is the concept of "concept". A comprehensive analysis of this concept in the works of linguists, literary critics and philologists of the past and present, conducted by V. A. Maslova (73, 10-33), suggests that today different researchers find different understanding of the concept. At the same time, everyone agrees that "concept" is the most important concept of cognitive linguistics. In our opinion, the concept is a bridge connecting ordinary linguistic thinking with cognitive thinking. Ordinary linguistic thinking is directly related to the meaning of words and phraseological units that make up the semantic system of the language. Cognitive thinking or cognitive linguistic thinking directly connects the lexical meaning of words with the linguistic picture of the world and ultimately determines the collective psyche, which is commonly called the national mentality.

In traditional linguistics and formal logic, the term concept was identified with an elementary concept. The terms concept and concept were used as synonyms. The only caveat is that when a concept and a concept are used synonymously, the term concept is used precisely in the terminological sense, and not in the common sense.

In ordinary everyday speech, the word concept is often mixed with the word representation. Representation, being a psychological category, consists of the image of an object and phenomenon, our knowledge of them, based on direct perception in the past. When it is said in everyday speech that someone has no concept of anything, as a rule, it is the representation as a result of direct observation that is meant.

The concept as a formal logic term consists of essential features of objects that are combined on the basis of these essential features into a single class of objects. The basis of the lexical meaning of the word is precisely the elementary concept of the subject. It is because of this that the word can name countless identical objects.

Researchers point out that in medieval European philosophy, the term concept was absolutely synonymous with the term concept. More precisely, in this case, we relate two terms that relate to different cultural sections of history. The term concept is a Russian concept and, of course, could not occur in medieval European philosophy. As for the term concept, it is beginning to be used in the language of Russian philosophy, but in a completely new meaning, not synonymous with the medieval one. It is believed that for the first time in this new meaning, the term concept is found in the language of the Russian philosopher S. A. Askold.

S. A. Askoldov began to use the term concept in the sense of not an elementary concept, but a concept enriched with cultural representations. A simple concept as a set of essential features of objects of a single class forms the basis of the lexical meaning of the word (44). For example, the meaning of the word bird is defined as follows in the Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov: "BIRD 1. A feathered and feathered vertebrate with wings, two limbs, and a beak" (86, 629).

What is this quote from the Dictionary of S. I. Ozhegov? This is the meaning of the word bird. What, then, is this value? Analysis of dictionary entries shows that it presents the most essential features of the category of living beings, which in the Russian language are the word bird in English the word bird, in the Azerbaijani language the word quş, etc.

Based on this dictionary entry, we see that the essential features of birds are the following: feathers, down, vertebra, wings, two limbs, beak. The totality of essential features that combine similar or identical objects into a single class is an elementary concept of this class of objects. Therefore, it is the elementary concept of a class of objects that forms the basis of the lexical meaning of the word. As we can see, these signs are universal in nature and have nothing to do with our ideas. Equally universal is the elementary concept itself, which is also not related to spatial-temporal and cultural representations and is a category of logic, and not linguistics at all.

Today's understanding of the concept differs significantly from both the medieval and the meaning of the logical term concept. The difference between the concept and the concept is that the concept just includes space-time characteristics. It is in this way that the concept turns out to be the leading, main feature of the national mentality. It is clear that the concept of "bird" and the concept of "bird" differ only in that the concept is devoid of national-cultural and spatio-temporal characteristics, while the concept has them. The concept of "bird" in the minds of the Russian people is associated with the ideas of those birds that were historically known to this people. It is these ideas about the birds of the Russian world, about their appearance, habits, voices, etc. that make up the concept of "bird".

Concepts make up the concept sphere, which in turn determines the specifics of the worldview and worldview of the Russian people. This has to do with the national mentality of all peoples. If we do not take into account the differences in the national-linguistic picture of the world, then all the arguments about the uniqueness of national characters remain empty talk. Language in its conceptual refraction provides us with concrete material that reveals the content of the national character.

Thus, it is possible to trace the differences in the worldview of individual peoples by exploring specific areas of linguistic expression. The researchers argue that the concept is not fully revealed in the language, there is something intimate that characterizes the deep levels of national psychology. In particular, this opinion was expressed by Yu. s. Stepanov (see: V. A. Maslova, 73). Perhaps this is the case. However, in our opinion, linguistic analysis should deal not with deep intimate experiences, but with specific language and speech material. So, if the researcher is interested in the attitude of the national character to food, then he systematizes and analyzes the reflection of this attitude, expressed in the lexical system of the language, phraseological system, Proverbs and sayings, parables, riddles, jokes, ditties, folklore in General. Moreover, the concept of "food" is analyzed based on the materials of fiction. The collected, systematized and analyzed material makes it possible to draw conclusions about the content of the concept in the Russian conceptual sphere and the language picture of the world.

It should be noted that neogumboldtians try to define differences even at the conceptual level, i.e., in their opinion, national mentalities differ even at the level of universal concepts, and not only at the conceptual level. One can argue with this, but a certain logic can be traced in such statements. For example, if the concept as a logical category includes essential features of objects of a single class, then different national mentalities (views, views on the world) are quite capable of seeing different essential features in things. Or in any case, the set of these essential features may be different. J. L. Weisgerber notes: "among the forces that implement and support every community, language is everywhere the most important force. A linguistic community is a prerequisite for any other community, and not only because it is the only one that makes communication possible, but also primarily because it is the vehicle of a common worldview as the basis of communication "(12, 131).

If you take this point of view, then everything in the language takes on a special meaning. All the facts of language begin to be explained exclusively through the prism of the ethnic worldview. Mikhail Zadorny's words that in English a person is a body, while in Russian it is a soul, acquire not a comic, but a real character. If Russian people say that there was no one somewhere, they say "there was not a soul, not a soul around". The English say nobody. "For us, man is the soul, for them-the body."

Similarly, in English, a man is a man, but a man is also a man. In Russian, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Grammatical facts can receive cognitive comprehension. For example, there is no gender distinction in the Turkic languages. Hence, we can conclude that in the Turkic world there was initially no discrimination on the basis of race.

Cognitive linguistics offers a completely new understanding of language forms. A new interpretation of language facts. This attitude to language should never be confused with elementary semantic analysis. Semantic analysis of lexical and phraseological means of the language has always been present. As for Proverbs, the relation of this folklore material to the history of the culture of the people has never been denied and could not be denied. Cognitive linguistics attempts to provide a conceptual analysis of linguistic facts. This is the difference between it and traditional semantic analysis.

REFERENCES

Askold S. A. Concept and the word // Russian speech. Collection edited by L. V. Shcherba. L.: ACADEMIA, 1928, pp. 28-44.

Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms, Moscow: Sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1966, 608 p.

Maslova V. A. Cognitive linguistics. Minsk: Tetrasystems, 2005, 256 p.

Ozhegov S. I. Lexicology. Lexicography. Culture of speech, Moscow: Higher school, 1974, 352 p.

Stepanov Yu. S. Methods and principles of modern linguistics. Moscow: Nauka, 1975, 312 p.