CC BY-ND
58
Journal of Language & Education
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2016
Historical and Symbolic Aspects of Linguistic Representation of the
World
Margarita Ganyushina
Russian State Social University
Background: insufficient theoretical and practical degree of scientific development of linguistic world-image problem has determined the choice of topic for research. Studying of symbolic language properties and linguistic sign within the linguistic world-image, which were not taken into account before, is conductive to a more profound comprehension of the correlation between language, culture, and mutual understanding index in the intercultural communication process. The article is an attempt to offer theoretical understanding of the notion "Linguistic world-image" (LWI) within historical and symbolic contexts according to the current state of the scientific field, define symbol's features, its influence on LWI forming in historic perspective, and investigate its functioningwithin idioms or metaphors.
Methods: firstly, to clarify the problem and discover new perspectives in LWI research, we have undertaken the review of previous LWI investigations. Secondly, as the methodological basis of research we have used ethno-semantic and linguistic-philosophical approaches to language material, the method of multiple etymology, introduced into science by the academician V. N. Toporov and developed by M.M. Makovskiy which have permitted to identify the correlation of LWI with linguistic sign as a carrier of symbolic meaning, the range of images and symbols of heathen thinking. So, linguistic sign is the main object ofthe analysis.
It should be noted that studying of symbolic language properties and linguistic sign within the linguistic world-image, which were not taken into account before, is conductive to a more profound comprehension ofthe correlation between language, culture, and mutual understanding index inthe intercultural communication process.
Conclusions: Thus, the LWI notion is considered as a subjective-objective dynamic multilevel construct which presents its dominating component by lexical-semantic language system within the world and national culture formed as a result ofthe reflection ofthe sensorial perception facts, understanding and estimation of the objective reality phenomena in national linguistic consciousness, in the experience of correlation of language concepts, images and symbols throughout cultural historical development ofthe language. Therefore, two approaches to LWI studying are evident - cognitive and cultural-philosophical - which are not so much conflicting as mutually reinforcing. So, it is becoming possible to expand area ofthe LWI investigation.
Keywords: symbolic language properties, linguistic sign, linguistic world-image, linguistic thinking, linguistic consciousness, inner form
Margarita A. Ganyushina, Department of Foreign Languages, Russian State Social University, Moscow. Corresponds concerning this article should be addressed to Margarita A. Ganyushina, Department of Foreign Languages, Russian State Social University, building 5, 4Wilhelm Pieck Str. Moscow, Russia, 129226 Contact: [email protected]
Introduction
In active interaction of cultures and peoples the studying of the symbolic language properties and linguistic sign within LWI is of utmost importance. It leads to a more profound comprehension of the correlation between language, culture, and the understanding index during the intercultural communication process. For this reason, theoretical understanding of the linguistic world-image concept in historical and symbolic contexts is urgent and necessary. There were a lot of LWI definitions. But in our opinion, they did not reflect enough the substance of LWI notion. They did not take into account the LWI symbolic aspect which has allowed to discover new perspectives in its research. Analysis of previous LWI investigations (e.g. Humboldt, 1836; Wittgenstein, 1918; Shpet, 1927; Weisgerber, 1929; Sapir and Whorf, 1954; Arutyu-nova, 1976; Yu.D. Apresyan, 1995; Teliya,1996; Ste-panov, 1997; N.V. Ivanov 2002; Maslova, 2007, et al) has permitted to identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the analyzed literature; clarify the problem and suggest the more complete definition to LWI notion in light of symbolic content and next steps in investigation of different linguistic world-images.
On the one hand, the review of above-mentioned studies have revealed that LWI investigation was mostly reduced to the analysis of metaphor combinatory of the words having abstract semantics which single out sensory perceptible image (Arutyunova, 1976; Yu.D. Apresyan, 1995; Teliya,1996; Lakoff &Johnson,1987; Vezhbitskaya, 1996; Zaliznyak,2005; Kornilov, 2002; Radchenko, 2002 etal).
On the other hand, they state that any national language reflects not only scientific knowledge about the world but also remains everything that does not correlate with objective reality, e.g. metaphors and idioms, mythological images. That is why we come to the conclusion that symbols and mythological images function in idioms and metaphors because early culture fixed in a language is known to mythological one. It could not disappear completely but continued to live in metaphors, idioms, proverbs. In that context, the symbol can be considered as the element of cultural information which is used in the speech and linguistic code of different cultural representatives.
Further, employing theories on sign and symbol, their correlations by such scientists as Florenskiy, 1913; Lotman, 1996; Ivanov, 2002, we have identified symbol's features. Symbol is able to transfer its information from the past to future, interact with up-to-date cultural context, and influence it. So, symbol can be considered as intermediate position between linguistic sign and image, while the sign - as a result of symbol's evolution. Hence, we have got a new algo-
rithm of LWI investigation - from myth to symbol to linguistic sign.
Investigation of symbols' functioning in metaphors and idioms helps retrace evolution of national spiritual culture and understand the principles of linguistic content.
Method
To clarify the problem of LWI investigation we have summarized previous theories on linguistic world-image and correlation of sign and symbol functioning in metaphors and idioms pointing out flaws or demonstrating the advantage of one theory over another. The analysis has permitted to suggest the algorithm of symbol content research functioning in metaphors and idioms. Moreover, we have used the
Analysis of historical development of the linguistic world-image conceptions
Long before the appearance of LWI notion, outstanding thinkers had turned to their contemporaries and to future generations throughout the haze of a shadowy and recent past and tried to explain the human's material and spiritual essence, his ability to realize, cognize, change the world and convey knowledge about it, mainly, by language. The notion " linguistic world-image " goes back directly to ideas of W. von Humboldt (1821), L. Wittgenstein (1918), L. Weisgerber (1929), E. Sapir and B. Whorf(1954).
W. von Humboldt's study
W. von Humboldt's study (1767 - 1835) on language was the foundation for the notion of the linguistic world-image. The cornerstone of his study was the notion of "objective reality", without which it was impossible to create relevant concept about the correlation between the language, the man and the world itself. The existence of the objective world independently of thought, conscience and even the man himself, but within the human mind was obvious to W. von Humboldt, like many of his predecessors and contemporaries.
After I. Kant, who believed that in nature there were no ideal spatial structures, all the idealizations were human's creations and inherent in his internal, "transcendental" world, but not in the external one. W. von Humboldt saw the reality within the national language. "Man ... lives primarily with objects in a way as his language presents them to him" (Humboldt, 2000, p. 80). Emphasizing the antinomy of the subjectivity and the objectivity, W. von Humboldt saw language as "the intermediate world", as "one more world being between the reality and the man's inner world" (Humboldt, 2000, p. 13). The scientist showed that the reality recorded in the language was not the
objective world, it was its likeness, our presentations about it, which expressed "the national spirit ". In fact, he acknowledged that the reality was not only the nature and the man-made objective world, but also all the area of human attitude to the reality itself and his like.
Further W. von Humboldt elaborated the doctrine about linguistic inner form as the specific unification way of sound material and mental content typical of a given language, "national spirit" that formed the basis of the LWI notion. According to V. von Humboldt, "form" notion went beyond grammar and word formation, it was connected with the basic words formation process. The scientist believed, knowing the form of a language, you could learn a specific way of a nation and its language to express its thoughts. According to W. von Humboldt, "national spirit" was the complex of intellectual values, the national culture and national spiritual identity. W. von Humboldt was convinced that national spiritual identity determined the national character, which underlay everything that had been created during the history of the nation, and national language identity.
On the other hand, the language by all the finest threads of their roots as "the organ of the inner being "has merged with the power of the national spirit, and the stronger the national spiritual influence on the language is the richer and more natural linguistic development "(Humboldt, 2000, p. 47). The language in its interdependent correlations is the product of a national linguistic consciousness. Thus, the scientist connected "the national spirit" with national creative activity of the consciousness to create "complex ideas of not only objective reality, but also national emotions, feelings, sensations and perceptions about the existence", creatively meaningful by a collective "subject of thought" . "Language is closely intertwined with the spiritual advance of mankind and accompanies it at each phase of its local progress or regress reflecting every stage of culture" (Humboldt, 2000, p. 48).
Speaking of the difference between the notions 'language as speech act' and 'language as a mass of speech products, the scientist came to the conclusion that "as far as the language is objectively effective and independent, just as it is subjectively passive and dependent..." (Humboldt, 2000, p. 83). In fact, W. von Humboldt said about the difference between "intermediate world" and " linguistic world-image": "language... appears as a world in which the subject adjoins to the subject matter, and language as world-view must come between the nature and the man" (Radchenko, 2002, p.174). In modern linguistics the first notion is defined as "static product" of language activity that stipulates the perception of objective reality, and its unit is the concept "spiritual object". LWI
is understood as a flexible dynamic entity, because it is formed from language interventions in reality; its unit is a speech act.
That the thinking depends on the language was wrong in the reasoning of the scientist. W. von Humboldt assigned to language the role of the cognizer ruling the world. In W. von Humboldt's contradictory assertions, his idealistic worldview struggled with the critical conclusions he had come to. On the one hand, Wilhelm von Humboldt considered language as the manifestation of a certain spiritual nature. On the other hand, inclined to the understanding of the language as a result of the historical process in close connection with the general conditions of the existence and the development of the language speakers, for "language usually develops only in society" (Humboldt, 2000, p. 77).
Despite all the confusion, W. von Humboldt's doctrine was a new contribution to linguistics and philosophy of language. His theory about the inner form had opened up opportunities to establish the world-view way expressed by people. However, more than for a century his academic heritage had been forgotten. Only in the early twentieth century the interest in W. von Humboldt's study of "word's inner form" was revived and the thesis on the concepts of "world image" (WI) and "linguistic world-image" was formulated .
Sociological approach
In the early XX century under the influence of F. de Saussure's ideas the LWI description began to be realized not only in terms of philosophic and interlin-guistic descriptivism, but also in terms of sociological approach. "Finally WI had acquired the environment in which it forms and exists, i.e."the speech community" (Radchenko, 2002, p. 141). Until that time, this problem had only been apparent, but not considered. First of all, such German scientists as F. Tennis and Durkheim, A. Firkandt, Maine, etc made an outstanding contribution to the development of a social-linguistic direction, to the world image conceptualization. In Russia the problem of describing of WI and the speech community was raised during the ethnic psychology formation. Its research is associated with the name of G. G. Shpet (1879 - 1940). Trying to explain global phenomena of spiritual life, he considered "community" as a "spiritual community". He considered the community as "the subject of cumulative effect" which was objectively made "community's subjective response on all the natural phenomena, its own social life and history" (Shpet, 1927, p. 10). That G.G. Shpet assigned a secondary role to the spirit and considered it as a derivative of other phenomena (although he continued to insist on the independent external existence of language, exerting its pressure
on the person) is his main contribution to Linguistics.
The inconsistency of the scientist is also expressed in his views regarding the interaction between language and ethnos. On the one hand, he indicated that language was an expression of national character, but on the other hand, he recognized the dependence of the national tenor of life on the man's activities in its creation. G. G. Shpet's controversial views did not allow him to consider practical approaches to WI of a specific language.
L. Wittgenstein's conception
Austrian philosopher and logician L. Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) realized the WI notion as a metaphor and emphasized its identity with the mental concept of "the image of the world". According to the scientist, the problems of misunderstanding arise as a result of incorrect interpretation of the deep-rooted linguistic forms in our minds and inability to fully embrace the use of our words. Understanding comes only as a result of "an illustrative operation, the view", i.e. the use of the word in a particular situation by establishing links with other concepts. Therefore, the identifying of the word use relations and circumstances describes a type of our representation, our way of viewing things, our worldview. The word, according to the scientist, reminds us a picture. It is the picture that reveals the content of the visual presentation experience.
Thus, L. Wittgenstein considered that the accepted word usage norms identified some thinking and behavior forms. From the perspective of modern linguistic science, L. Wittgenstein's views are misleading. Thought and language are not identical, hence the notion is a unit of thinking, and the meaning is a linguistic unit. Accordingly, the notion is expressed, the meaning is inserted in the sign, correlates with the object and actively interacts with the mental concept.
Therefore, we cannot say that the "picture" created by the language takes everybody captive. Language does not draw anything, it is just "a way of expressing of the objective world reflected in the conceptual mind. Thus, to perceive the world through language is a misconception" (Fefilov, 2004, p. 44). However, L. Wittgenstein's merit is a new approach to the language analysis in general and subsequently to the study of LWI to consider the word meaning in its usage.
L. Weisgerber's views
Inspired by W. von Humboldt's teaching and his contemporaries' views L. Weisgerber started to develop concept LWI in the early 30-ies of the last century. The following provisions on "the language law" and only its social level are at the core of his concept: 1) " language system ", i.e. language as a basis for speech for individual activities; 2) language as an objective social phenomenon; 3) language ability.
As a basic speech community, he considered the community, in which people had the same native language. Without realizing the full extent of the episte-mological predestination of the linguistic community, L. Weisgerber enclosed it in the world creation by native language. From this perspective, he developed the LWI theory. At first, the term "world image" (WI) or "world picture" did not refer to a language. The scientist pointed out only the force affecting language that could unite the whole human experience during the forming of the only WI. Later, L. Weisgerber included the world image notion at first in the vocabulary of the language, and then associated it with the content of the language as a whole.
A few years later, he revisited his point of view regarding the objective foundations of the studied notions and focused on the ethnicity and national subjectivity of linguistic content. He believed that every nation saw the world from its point of view, which was expressed in his language.
So, L. Weisgerber conceded relative freedom of consciousness from LWI, but in its framework, therefore there was not any opportunity to be exempted from it. The scientist noted that each person was quite capable to keep his own personality in the course of assimilation of the native language, but only within the national linguistic world-image (NLWI). For this reason the people speaking different languages see the world differently, everyone "from his own window". L. Weisgerber's conception emphasizes lexical system as it possesses the greatest world outlook opportunities. That is why according to L. Weisgerber LWI is represented, first of all, as a system of lexical fields (Weisgerber, 1993).
E. Sepir's and B. Uorfs hypothesis of linguistic
relativity
The special contribution to development of the theory of LWI was made by E. Sepir and B. Uorf, American adherents of Humboldt's conception. In the hypothesis of Linguistic relativity(!954) they proved differentiation of notions WI and LWI. Due to their efforts the notion was permanently included not only into linguistics, but also in culturology. Though authors of a hypothesis strove for isolation from the European linguistics, their hypothesis goes back to W. of von Humboldt's doctrine and it is in essence close to L. Weisgerber's conception. By the end of the XX century, on the next round of linguistics development when by consideration of the LWI problem the accent was put on a human factor again, scientists reverted to ideas of W. von Humboldt and his followers: A.A. Po-tebnya, E. Benvenist, F. Boas, E. Sapir, B. Whorf, etc. They had already analyzed existing theories and came to a new understanding of this problem.
Many modern Russian scientists such as Yu.D.
Apresyan (1995) Yu.S. Stepanov (1997), N. D. Arutyu-nova (1976), T.V. Bulygina & D. N. Shmelyov (1997), E.S. Kubryakova (1993) V. I. Postovalova (1988), A.V. Bondarko (2001, 2002) devoted their works to LWI problem. 0. A. Kornilov (2002), V. N. Thalia (1996), R. H. Khayrullina (2007) et al. are engaged in studying of word-formation and phraseological resources of LWI; N. A. Zakutkina & O.A. Radchenko (2004) study dialect pictures of the world , M. M. Makovsky, T.V. Toporova are engaged in mythological decoding of world images in Indo-European languages. O. A. Radchenko (2002) devoted his works to history of the idio-ethnic direction in language philosophy. A. Ve-zhbitska's works (1997,1990, 2001, 2006 etc) showthe necessity of overcoming purely linguistic borders in researches and the use of national psychology, national mentality and national culture's data. Correlation between language and thinking is actively investigated in psycholinguistics. A.N Leontyev's (1983), E.F. Tarasov's (2000), E.V. Sidorov's (2011) works convincingly prove the interactive character of verbal communication. So, according to S. N. Kurbakova (2013), "being engaged in interaction with other people to achieve some aims, an addressant has to effectively control the recipient's activity during the communication. The person acts in a certain situation (place), and in a broad sense, space, at a certain time or period of time". S. N. Kurbakova believes that "by studying verbal orientation of speech according to the coordinates of person, place and time of activity we get an opportunity to describe the essential parameters of objective reality which are in human consciousness " (Kurbakova, 2013, p. 97).
Consciousness, being a receptive, accumulative and estimated component, provides perception, logical judgment and information assessment. In our consciousness there is a processing of evident feelings and images, fixing of their cogitative images and formation of a conceptual world view. As the consciousness correlates language and objective reality, it takes an intermediate position between language and the objective world. As a result of a world objectification, the consciousness presents not only the idea about a thing itself and its initial properties independent of human life, but also reflects its socially significant properties acquired consequently by personal and public experience. Thereupon, it is possible to say that because of geographical, cultural, historical, social and other distinctions, the objective reality is reflected in different nations' consciousness unequally, according to national beliefs as the human consciousness is formed to a certain extent under the impact of national culture.
Therefore, we can speak about the notion of national consciousness which forms so-called "a national linguistic world-image". Logical-conceptual component of consciousness segments an infinite in-
formation stream and turns it into set of information bundles (by O. A. Kornilov's definition "informema") which become concepts of national linguistic consciousness (Kornilov, 2003, p. 147). Cogitative images and concepts are verbalized under person's desires and the linguistic thinking as a dynamic component to transform and explain the objective reality. Trying to explain events and phenomena of the objectivity, the human consciousness attracts a whole number of symbols available to the system of traditional national beliefs. At early stages of national development the explanation of the current events and process of the universe had mythological justification with the system of images and symbols as the only thing available for that period.
Thanks to the creative activity of linguistic thinking and its associative orientation, abstract notions and any physical fact are actualized by cogitative images and real-life objects, their signs and the relations which are already available in memory and have subjective and estimated orientation. The emotional assessment of an image is the cornerstone of associative correlation of a sign to image. Thus, in the course of reflection the real image at the consciousness level can have both significant and connotative conceptual content. So, metaphorical constructions which are the code and the meta-code of our thoughts appear. The correlation of the language concepts, images and language symbols caused by language experience and national features of native speakers makes NLWI.
It should be noticed that a mutual understanding between people of different nationalities occurs because of the uniform logical-conceptual base of mental universals and a substantive universal code (according to N. I. Zhinkin's terminology) which make the thinking basis independent of national languages and cultures (Kornilov, p. 121). Distinction is formed as a result of development, concretization and specification of a universal logical conceptual basis by each ethnos. Everything that is beyond the substantive universal code, on the periphery of a logical-conceptual framework of the world order is national determined and specific.
Research results and Discussions
Thus before to give the LWI definition, let us draw some conclusions.
• In the history of studying of LWI phenomenon there are two approaches: cognitive and cultural -philosophical. Both approaches are not so much conflicting as mutually reinforcing. That is why in the LWI research it is necessary to consider basic ideas ofboth approaches.
• On the one hand, the ontological status of the
LWI concept defines the correlation between language and consciousness: they have mutual correlation. On the other hand, this concept is considered as a so-called peculiar cultural matrix within which a person can think and act.
• The key idea is anthropocentricity and ethno-centricity of language. People's activity, their feelings and emotions, vast spaces are measured by the man relative to himself, accepting everything in himself, in his inner world; and imaging himself in the visual environment. LWI keeps model of such anthropocentrism for all ages. Any national language reflects not only knowledge about the world but also remains everything that isn't connected with objective reality, for example, mythological images, metaphors and idioms.
• According to many scientists such as 0. A. Kor-nilov, A. Vezhbitska, E.S. Kubryakova LWI is not only lexical-semantic system of language but also it is all system of language as it is capable to bear information on a national world perception. By researching LWI the scientist should investigate word's inner form considering it as the keeper of cultural traditions and values.
• The further we go beyond internal linguistics by a concept investigation, the more obvious its correlation with axiological and mythological ideas is.
Linguistic world-image definition from the
point of view its modern scientific understanding
To sum up, all things considered we can draw the definition to WLI notion from point of view modern science.
The linguistic world-Image is a subjective-objective dynamic multilevel construct which presents its dominating component by lexical-semantic language system within the world and national culture formed as a result of the reflection of the sensorial perception facts, understanding and estimation of the objective reality phenomena in national linguistic consciousness, in the experience of correlation of language concepts, images and symbols throughout cultural historical development of the language. The cultural and historical role of WLI is in the storage and transfer of national experience of specific perception of life facts from generation to generation [Ganyushina, 2009 p. 33].
Following our definition, it should be noted that early culture fixed in a language was mythological one. It could not disappear completely but continued
to live in metaphors, idioms, proverbs. According to V. N. Thalia (1987), idioms can carry out the function of cultural-national world-vision standards, or point to their symbolical character of stereotypes. That is why they act as linguistic carriers of cultural signs. The language thinking selected symbolical components in idioms' structure to fix their semantic contents. In this connection we can say that the symbol as the element of cultural information is used in the speech and linguistic code of different cultural representatives. The following symbol's features can be defined - a) archaism; b) semantic and structural originality; c) dynamism; d) broad semantic potential; e) variability [Ganyushina, 2009 p. 43].
These features allow a symbol to keep significant cultural information in a condensed form, transfer it from the past to the future, interact with an up-to-date cultural context and influence it. The broad semantic reserve of a symbol doesn't allow to reveal all its content by verbal expression, however it favors the symbol to form unexpected correlations, changing the essence and deforming a text environment. The symbolics is obligatory, it is historically steady and given, on the one hand, as something ready, and on the other one, as our representations. So, symbol can be considered as intermediate position between linguistic sign and image, while the sign - as a result of symbol's evolution. Moreover, symbol can be defined as the fusion of archetypes which make the myth's base.
Hence, a new algorithm of LWI study follows -from myth to symbol to linguistic sign.
Our theoretical consequences have found the confirmation in practical WLI research.
Let us give some examples concerning the notion "wind" and "air". In traditions of all nations these notions are an element which is necessary for life. In the ancient time the wind is known to be equalized with soul (cf.: English: wind, "German: Wind "wind", Os-setic: udd "soul") (Makovsky, 2005, p. 500), in idioms -to recover one's wind, to catch / get one's second wind- the lexeme wind means "breath"; be down the wind: "to feel bad"; be in the wind "to be slightly [a bit] drunk"- the position of the person relative to a wind explains their meaning. In the expression to blow hot and cold (i.e. to blow hot and cold wind), the elements of a wind symbolize moral condition of the person: his constant doubts in decision-making, mood, relations; dual position. In this regard, the correlation of the meaning wind with the meaning "dark, blind" is interesting: Latin: aquilo "north", but Lithuanian: aklas "blind"; Greek: KaiKiag "a strong wind", but Latin: cae-cus "blind" (Makovsky, 1989, p. 51). The idiom be right before the wind with all the studding sailsout means "be drunk" for the English.
Air as one of four primary elements, symbolizes Top and goes back to the meaning "burn", "be in the
movement"; "spirit, breath"; "to cut, cut"; "to lift"; "to take". As the symbol of the fast movement, air is represented in the form of a fast Horse (cf. Russian: dialect, орь "horse") (Makovsky, 2005, p. 80).
On the assumption of the research results, the sense of the following expressions becomes clear: be on the air "to broadcast", take air "to become known, become well-known", to keep smth. in the air "to keep someone in a condition of uncertainty, uncertainty, expectation" Insignificant talks and chatter the British call hot air. As the notion "air" correlate to "fire", be (get or go) up in the air means "lose one's temper" : He's not a bad sort of fellow, used to get up in the air a bit quick, one time, but he's toned down now. Fish in the air means "do useless things", to saw the air "to gesticulate a lot", "to swing one's arms".
To sum up, cultural traditions and world-vision of any nation, undoubtedly, find the embodiment in language. To find so-called "index understanding" which would help to define as far as differently the interlocutor perceives objective reality, it is necessary to consider the national way of thinking reflected in the lexical system of a language acting as a NLWI.
References
Ganyushina M.A. (2007). Символика константных и вариативных черт в языковой картине мира [Symbolics of constant and variant features in linguistic world-image (by example of russian and en-glishidioms)]. Moscow, Russia: ООО TransArt.
Humboldt V. fon. (Eds.). (2000). О различии строения человеческих языков и его влиянии на духовное развитие человечества [About distinction of the human languages' structure and its influence on spiritual humanity development]. In Selected works on Linguistics (pp. 37 - 284). Moscow: Progress.
Fefilov A.I. (2004). Основы когитологии [Fundamentals of Cogitology]. Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State University.
Kornilov O.A. (2003). Языковые картины мира как отражение национальных менталитетов. [Linguistic world-image as the reflection of national mentalities]. Moscow: CheRo.
Kurbakova S.N. (2013). Структурообразующий элемент речепроизводства [Structural forming element of speech production]. Современные тенденции в образовании и науке. Сборник научных трудов по материалам Международной научно-практической конференции, 10, 97-101. Tambov.
Makovskiy М.М. (1989).Удивительный мир слов и значений: Иллюзии и парадоксы в лексике и семантике. [Amazing world of words and values: Illusions and paradoxes in lexicon and semantics]. Moscow, Russia: KomKniga.
Makovskiy M.M. (2005). Большой этимологический словарь современного английского языка. [Big etymological dictionary of modern English]. Moscow, Russia: Azbukovnik.
Radchenko O.A. (2002). Понятие языковой картины мира в немецкой философии языка XX века. [Concept of linguistic world-image in the language German philosophy of the XX century], Вопросы языкознания, 6, 140 - 158. Moscow.
Sapir - Whorf (2006) Sapir - Whorf hypothesis Retrieved from "http: //en. wikipedia. Org.
Shpet G.G. (1927). Введение в этническую психологию [Introduction to ethnic psychology], Moscow, Russia: Gosudarstvennaja Akademija Hudozhestvennyh Nauk.
Thalia V. N. (1987). Телия B.H. Метафоризация как основной прием создания лексических и фразеологических средств языковой картины мира. [Metaforization as the main approach to the creation of lexical and phraseological means of a linguistic image of the world]. Роль человеческого фактора в языке: Язык и картина мира, 173 — 203. Moscow, Russia.
Weisgerber L. (1993). Родной язык и формирование духа. [Native Language and Spirit Forming], Moscow, Russia: Moscow State University.
Wittgenshtein L. (2003) Философские исследования [Philosophical researches], Языки как образ мира, pp. 220 -549. Moscow, Russia: ООО «Izdatel'stvo AST»,; St. Petersbourg, Russia: Terra Fantastica?.
