CC BY
25УДК 811 DOI: 10.24412/2411-2275-2021-3-137-141
ФОМЕНКО М.В., МАРМАЗОВА Т.И.
ЛИНГВОФИЛОСОФСКИЕ ВЗГЛЯДЫ НА ПРИРОДУ КУЛЬТУРНОГО КОДА ЯЗЫКА
Ключевые слова: культура, язык, код, символ, знак, знаковая система
В статье приведен анализ категорий «культура», «язык», «код», обозначены их семасиологические особенности, структурные свойства и характер функционирования. Показано, что культурные и языковые коды эффективно передают значение только в рамках до определенной степени закрытых обществ - этнических или других социальных групп. И именно возможность общения и передачи опыта одновременно помогает объединить членов этих групп и исключить из них посторонних. Благодаря этой изоляции языков и культур разные общества развиваются и организуются по-разному, создавая удивительное этнокультурное разнообразие. Пристальное изучение данных феноменов позволяет обнаружить их устойчивые взаимозависимости и коэволюционные отношения, которые способствуют формированию парадигмального характера связей. Рассмотрение лингвистических и философских концепций дает основания для более глубокого проникновения в проблему культурного кода языка.
FOMENKO, M.V., MARMAZOVA, T.I.
LINGUOPHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS ON THE NATURE OF THE LANGUAGE' CULTURAL CODE
Key words: culture, language, code, symbol, sign, sign system
The article analyzes the categories «culture», «language», «code», identifies their semasiological features, structural properties and functioning. Both cultural and linguistic codes effectively translate meaning only within the framework of to a certain extent closed societies - ethnic or other social groups. And it is the possibility of communication and the transfer of experience that simultaneously helps to unite the members of these groups and exclude outsiders from them. Thanks to this isolation of languages and cultures, different societies develop and organize in different ways, making up an amazing ethno-cultural diversity. A close study of these phenomena makes it possible to detect their stable interdependencies and coevolutionary relationships that contribute to the formation of the paradigmatic nature of connections. The consideration of linguistic and philosophical concepts gives grounds for a deeper insight into the problem of the language' cultural code.
The study of traditions, foundations, and features of the culture of any nation is inextricably linked with the appeal to the language, which revealed deep processes of its formation. Being complex, multicomponent, and multidimensional systems, language and culture are both mutually conditioned, complemented, enriched, and changed each other, which indicates their co-evolutionary paradigm. It is impossible to say which of the systems is the primary one, and where is the border between mental, figurative, and linguistic expression, objective reality, and its reflection in speech, it is also impossible to establish the degree of independence of cultural achievements from language and vice versa. However, the accumulated knowledge in the field of linguistics, cultural studies, anthropology, philosophy, and other fields allows us to detect stable relationships between language and culture, consider them through the categories of code, sign, symbol, and in addition, trace the independent semasiological features of each of them.
Currently, culture is understood as a variety of artificial, man-made diverse objects, forms, norms, and principles of cultural exchange that regulate social activities. Such cultural objects concern habitat created by man, including material and non-material forms of the embodiment of creative act. A special place in this environment is held by the sign-symbolic system of the language, reflected in texts, knowledge, experience. If we turn to the fundamental theoretical position of the Tartu School of Semiotics, we find that culture is represented as a sign phenomenon consisting of a large number of codes [1]. Cultural codes or cultural languages are in constant interaction, their re-encoding from one code to another leads to the creation of new information.
The famous postmodernist philosopher M. Foucault pointed out that culture is inherent in order, which is its essence. Because everything that person interacts with is ordered, formed into categories, comprehended in the context of similarity and difference. A person's thought is also structured through language and thereby acquires similarity with any other form of culture [2]. Culture, as a complex, developing area of human existence, is characterized by certain processes that make up its core. First of all, it is the birth and development of a new phenomenon in human activity - cultural genesis, which excludes the possibility of stagnation, since the emergence and introduction of new cultural forms into life is already a dynamically developing process. Because of this process, civilization is constantly and continuously changing. Another important feature of culture is revealed in translation (the transfer of empirical and theoretical experience accumulated by people from person to person, from generation to generation), acting as its fundamental function. The translation is closely related to the diffusion of culture - its spatial and temporal spread through social exchange. Culture is characterized by a systemic transformation, that is, dynamic processes that affect the entire multidimensional set of cultural forms
accumulated by humanity. All these processes are carried out through language [3]. So many philosophers, in particular, the French sociologist E. Durkheim, asked the question: how to build a message about the experience in such a way that its meaning would be clear to the addressee? And the answer was unchanged - with the help of language.
In linguistic interpretation, the term language is an abbreviated version of the term natural language or ethno-language. In the semiotic interpretation, language means any sign system (the language of dance, cinema, music, computer language, etc.). According to the philosopher S. Yachin, the sign-in language is inseparable from the symbolic, although these categories are not identical and cannot be reduced to each other. This understanding implies that language consists of signs. A sign can hardly be defined in a way that would be different from a symbol. In addition, there is a tendency in modern linguistics to consider natural language words exclusively assigns, that is, conventional reflections of reality [4]. So words are understood by many linguists as parts of a code, the meaning of which people agree among themselves for further use.
The term code is also used as a synonym for the term sign system, but they should be distinguished. N.B. Mechkovskaya defines code as «the language or its variant ... that is used by the participants of this communicative act» [5]. Therefore, like any sign system, language acts in one of its functional aspects: as a text generator and a regenerator of meanings, i.e. as a code. The addressee encodes the message by creating text, and the addressee decodes text by recreating the message. This interpretation of the concept of «code» can be compared with the definition given in the book by I.V. Arnold: «A code is a set of significant units and rules for their connection that allows you to transmit messages» [6]. At the same time, the interpretive function of code is associated with the understanding of messages. The message as the content side of the text influences the addressee. It is the functional side of the message, and the communication channel is the physical environment that appears in the communicative acts as the substance of text expression plan; within its framework, the text in the form of a chain of signs is transmitted from the producer to the recipient.
Hardly anyone will undertake to assert that the culture of humanity or a particular social group is just a set of arbitrary code designations of the phenomena of reality. With such an approach, the most important spiritual component of culture would be lost. In this regard, language is not just a code that helps us to name the surrounding objects or phenomena. It is very simple to prove: in natural languages, there are words which meaning is separated from objective reality, for example, words «being», «faith», «meaning», «context» and many others have no other meaning than metaphysical [7].
Since the names of speculative phenomena can be endowed not only with a conventional but also with subjective meaning, to the extent that not only a symbolic but also a symbolic essence is distinguished in them. A symbol is a form, the essence of which strongly depends on the meanings that the subject included in a particular culture puts into it. This is the difference between a symbol and a sign since the sign exists and functions independently of human perception [4]. Thus, symbolism in art gives the same objects different meanings, but road signs, typographic signs in any circumstances convey the same idea by the previously concluded social contract. A natural language word expresses the meaning, it can designate, nominate objects - and this is characteristic of the word as a sign. Thus, in the most general sense, language is not only a set of signs but also a set of symbols, which significantly expands its definition.
Famous French philosopher R. Descartes considered the issues of linguistics, glottogenesis. His views subsequently influenced the teachings of many outstanding linguists of the XX century. Thus, the philosopher saw in language the expression of human nature. From his point of view, the ability of a person to formulate statements corresponding to new thoughts and changing circumstances is the main unique feature that separates a person from animals. Because even the most perfect animal is not able to use language and other signs. According to Descartes, language is not just a set of stable associations between external stimuli and internal reactions; it is a tool for the creative and free expression of thoughts. Without delving into semiotics, R. Descartes proposed a linguo-philosophical point of view regarding language, which even allowed scientists of the XIX-XX centuries to call language «instinct», which, however, goes against the position of the philosopher himself, who opposed instinct and human nature, noting that the more perfect the first, the less pronounced the second [8]. The views of R. Descartes assumed the innate nature of language in humans, the initial adaptation of consciousness to the linguistic perception of reality, and the expression of meanings through speech.
The ideas of contrasting the nature of man and the machine, based on the ability to use language, were developed by Zh. de Cordemois in the 17th century. The scientist argued that the relevance, coherence, and novelty of human speech cannot be explained mechanically. The ability to generate words in response to other words, constantly produce innovations, served for Zh. de Cordemois as the most important feature of human nature [9]. Thus, language and speech were embodiments of the essence of man, his mind.
In the cultural context, language should be considered as a concept at the intersection of semiotics and linguo-philosophy. Being a set of symbols and signs that embody the natural environment understood by man, as well as objects and abstractions created by him, language is a kind of container of culture, its end-to-end structure, and a central phenomenon. Being an integral part of abstract human thinking, language as a system of signs and symbols embodies the essence of reason, that is, the core of human nature, which also finds expression in all types of activities, starting with an ordinary conversation and ending with the creation of works of art [10; 11].
The close relationship between language and culture is revealed through the proximity of their nature. They both represent a semiotic system, the signs of which serve not only to designate objects and phenomena of reality perceived by consciousness but also to designate each other. For example, art as a sphere of culture contains a large number of signs and symbols that metaphorically express the thoughts of the creator, and which arise in response to changing circumstances. But, since art objects are created to transmit the subjective perception of reality to other individuals, other, not only artistic signs are necessary, which may be unclear to most people. And here we need a language, as a universal code that can convey the meaning of other signs most effectively, accurately, concretely. The reverse process, which occurs during the transformation of language from a functional agent of culture into an independent sphere of artistic activity, is observed, for example, in literature. However, the essence of culture and language cannot be reduced only to signal. That is why a deeper analysis of these phenomena is necessary.
According to the research of S. Yachin, the structural unity of culture and language indicates their inseparable relationship, which is both a condition and a result of their functioning. Thus, it is noted that both systems are inherent: «grammar» (a certain order in the expression of meanings), «rhetoric» (the ability to transfer experience), «semantics» (the ability to attach meaning to phenomena and objects of reality, to connect them with the consciousness of the subject), «poetics» (the creative principle embedded in the elements of the system and producing new meanings) [4]. This approach allows us to establish not only the structural but also the ideological, conceptual kinship of language and culture. In the process of their implementation through different forms, these systems follow the same path, interact equally with the plane of meanings.
At the initial stage, an individual's perception of meaning means that some spiritual content inherent in an object or phenomenon is realized and decoded by a person, fitting into his picture of the world - a system of concepts and ideas about the surrounding reality. At the second stage, the perceived meaning is expressed by the subject. It is encoded into new signs, that are transmitted to other people at the third stage. The final stage of the interaction of both cultural and linguistic signs and meaning is the reification - the embodiment of the concept in a material form. For example, in the form of writing, images, sound, etc. Therefore, the proximity of language and culture is ensured by their continuous interconnection, a certain similarity of processes that occur with the direct participation of human consciousness.
In addition, an important aspect of the unity of language and culture is reflected in the similarity of their hierarchical structure. Both systems lend themselves to a certain logic: they consist of interrelated levels and subsystems, including structural units that, referring to the lower level, act as the basis for the formation of upper-level units, and at the same time never remain in their original form. For example, speech sounds belong to the lower phonemic level of the language and serve as the basis for the formation of morphemes, but in the process of interaction and the formation of new speech forms, phonemes are always subject to changes. Similar processes can be observed in philosophy, where the previously derived definitions of mental categories and operations change depending on the general theory. Thus, the concept of «the meaning of life» became the basic and conceptually common for all Hellenistic schools of ancient Greek philosophy. However, not all schools defined this concept in the same way: epicureanism saw the meaning of life in moderate pleasures, Eudaemonism - in happiness, cynics - virtues, the harmony of morality and reason, etc. Being an element of the basic level of philosophical thought, the concept of the
meaning of life was constantly transformed, interwoven, and reflected in more complex philosophical systems.
The kinship of language and culture is also manifested in the role they play for a person, his thinking, and the process of cognition. Both systems appear as intermediaries in a person's reflexive attitude to himself, other people, nature, and the surrounding world. With the help of language and cultural forms, the acquired experience is fixed in the consciousness, passed on to the next generations, accumulated and systematized, contributing to the gradual complication and progress of the development of various spheres of society.
In culture, the creative aspect is realized mainly in art, where a person always strives to overcome the ordinary, mediocrity, a set of established practices created before him, to reach the level of innovation. Language, according to N. Chomsky, is a natural property of the human mind that helps to embody and translate the information accumulated by the forces of the senses and imagination [12]. At the same time, the creative aspect occupies a very important place, since a person does not just transmit some codes in the form of statements through natural language, but also generates new meanings for which new language units are sometimes created. And, as in the case of artistic practices in culture, in language, the desire to comprehend and comprehend the new leads to the search for «fresh» expressive means, which certainly expands its horizons.
Another fundamental similarity between language and culture is their identification function. Both cultural and linguistic codes effectively translate meaning only within the framework of to a certain extent closed societies - ethnic or other social groups. And it is the possibility of communication and the transfer of experience that simultaneously helps to unite the members of these groups and exclude outsiders from them. Thanks to this isolation of languages and cultures, different societies develop and organize in different ways, making up an amazing ethno-cultural diversity.
Thus, the above provisions illustrate both the conceptual and formal kinship of language and culture, which is both a condition and an embodiment of their relationship. In general, summing up, we emphasize that the connection between language and culture is mutually dependent, while the specific forms of their interaction need a thorough, in-depth study since many questions arise when these phenomena are considered in more detail. It can be confidently stated that being two key aspects of human mental activity, cultural and linguistic activity are impossible without each other since a person's unique ability to abstract thinking involves the constant generation, translation, and reproduction of experience in the form of signs and symbols. According to the apt definition of V. von Humboldt: «Language is an ever-repeating effort of the spirit to make an articulate sound and expression of thought».
Литература и источники
1. Ю.М. Лотман и тартуско-московская семиотическая школа / Отв. ред. А.Д. Кошелев. М.: Гнозис, 1994.
2. Фуко Мишель. Слова и вещи. Археология гуманитарных наук. М.: «Прогресс», 1977. 488 с.
3. Баркова Э.В. Лингво-культурная детерминация в экофилософской концептуализации современного мира // Достижения науки в контексте повышения качества жизни и устойчивого развития общества. Сборник научных статей международной научно-практической конференции и IV Всероссийской (с международным участием) конференции/ Под общ. Ред. А.А. Арупова. М.: НИИ МЭиМО им. Е.М.Примакова РАН, 2019. С. 59-70.
4. Ячин С.Е. Язык как основание и универсальная модель культуры // Государство, религия, Церковь в России и за рубежом. М., 2010. Т. 28. № 1. С. 14-34.
5. Мечковская Н.Б. Социальная лингвистика. М., 2000. 208 с.
6. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык. М.: Флинта, 2016. 384 с.
7. Фоменко М.В., Мармазова Т.И., Угрюмова М.В., Фоменко С.А. Историософский анализ проблемы становления категории «Абсолютное» в русской религиозной философии XI-XVIII веков (доуниверситетский период) // Право и практика. 2021. № 1. С. 185-194.
8. Декарт Рене. Сочинения в 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1989. 654 с.
9. Кротов А.А. К истории картезианской традиции: окказионализм Кордемуа // История философии. М.: ИФРАН, 2010. № 15. С. 28-38.
10. Дандамаева З.Э. Новые тенденции применения информационных цифровых технологий в образовательном пространстве // Личность в условиях глобальных социокультурных трансформаций цифрового информационного общества. Сборник статей по итогам Международной научной конференции. М., 2021. С. 112-116.
11. Фоменко М.В., Мармазова Т.И., Дандамаева З.Э., Угрюмова М.В., Хижная А.В. Ноосферное образование: философское осмысление проблемы формирования и его значения // Право и практика. 2021. № 2. С. 236-241.
12. Хомский Ноам. Картезианская лингвистика. Глава из истории рационалистической мысли. М.: КомКнига, 2005. 232 с.
References and Sources
1. Yu.M. Lotman i tartusko-moskovskaya semioticheskaya shkola / Otv. red. A.D. Koshelev. M.: Gnozis, 1994.
2. Fuko Mishel'. Slova i veshchi. Arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk. M.: «Progress», 1977. 488 s.
3. Barkova E.V. Lingvo-kul'turnaya determinaciya v ekofilosofskoj konceptualizacii sovremennogo mira // Dostizheniya nauki v kontekste povysheniya kachestva zhizni i ustojchivogo razvitiya obshchestva. Sbornik nauchnyh statej mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii i IV Vserossijskoj (s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem) konferencii/ Pod obshch. Red. A.A. Arupova. M.: NII MEiMO im. E.M.Primakova RAN, 2019. S. 59-70.
4. Yachin S.E. Yazyk kak osnovanie i universal'naya model' kul'tury // Gosudarstvo, religiya, Cerkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom. M., 2010. T. 28. № 1. S. 14-34.
5. Mechkovskaya N.B. Social'naya lingvistika. M., 2000. 208 s.
6. Arnol'd I.V. Stilistika. Sovremennyj anglijskij yazyk. M.: Flinta, 2016. 384 s.
7. Fomenko M.V., Marmazova T.I., Ugryumova M.V., Fomenko S.A. Istoriosofskij analiz problemy stanovleniya kategorii «Absolyutnoe» v russkoj religioznoj filosofii XI-XVIII vekov (douniversitetskij period) // Pravo i praktika. 2021. N° 1. S. 185-194.
8. Dekart Rene. Sochineniya v 2 t. M.: Mysl', 1989. 654 s.
9. Krotov A.A. K istorii kartezianskoj tradicii: okkazionalizm Kordemua // Istoriya filosofii. M.: IFRAN, 2010. № 15. S. 28-38.
10. Dandamaeva Z.E. Novye tendencii primeneniya informacionnyh cifrovyh tekhnologij v obrazovatel'nom prostranstve // Lichnost' v usloviyah global'nyh sociokul'turnyh transformacij cifrovogo informacionnogo obshchestva. Sbornik statej po itogam Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii. M., 2021. S. 112-116.
11. Fomenko M.V., Marmazova T.I., Dandamaeva Z.E., Ugryumova M.V., Hizhnaya A.V. Noosfernoe obrazovanie: filosofskoe osmyslenie problemy formirovaniya i ego znacheniya // Pravo i praktika. 2021. № 2. S. 236-241.
12. Homskij Noam. Kartezianskaya lingvistika. Glava iz istorii racionalisticheskoj mysli. M.: KomKniga, 2005. 232 s.
ФОМЕНКО МАРИНА ВИКТОРОВНА - кандидат философских наук, доцент, кафедра истории и философии, Российский экономический университет им. Г.В. Плеханова ([email protected]).
МАРМАЗОВА ТАТЬЯНА ИВАНОВНА - доктор политических наук, профессор, кафедра истории и философии, Российский экономический университет им. Г.В. Плеханова ([email protected]).
FOMENKO, MARINA V. - Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of History and Philosophy, Plekhanov Russian University ([email protected]).
MARMAZOVA, TATIANA I. - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor of the Department of History and Philosophy, Plekhanov Russian University ([email protected]).
УДК 316.77 DOI: 10.24412/2411-2275-2021-3-141-147
САВЧЕНКО В.А.
«ФАЛЬШИВАЯ РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ» КАК ФУНДАМЕНТ МАНИПУЛЯЦИИ
Ключевые слова: манипуляция, управление, формирование общественного мнения, убеждение, информационные технологии, медиасреда, информация, когнитивная психология, эвристика доступности, эвристика репрезентативности, якорение.
В статье рассматривается вопрос манипуляции общественным мнением, которое, в свою очередь, влияет практически на все общественные процессы. За последние два десятилетия специалистами в области когнитивной психологии открыты особенности мышления среднестатистического индивида, которые приводят к восприятию искаженной картины мира под воздействием определенным образом представленной информации. Эти открытия должным образом сообществом не оценены, законодателями в учет не принимаются, но уже активно используются в политике и маркетинге.
SAVCHENKO, V.A.
"FALSE REALITY" AS A FOUNDATION OF MANIPULATION
Key words: manipulation, management, formation of public opinion, persuasion, information technology, media environment, information, cognitive psychology, accessibility heuristic, representativeness heuristic, anchoring.
The article considers the issue of manipulation of public opinion, which, in turn, affects almost all social processes. Over the past two decades, specialists in the field of cognitive psychology have discovered the peculiarities of thinking of the average individual, which lead to the perception of a distorted picture of the world under the influence of information presented in a certain way. These discoveries are not properly appreciated by the community, they are not taken into account by legislators, but they are already actively used in politics and marketing.
Гуманисты прошлого так или иначе в своих работах касались вопроса о месте манипуляции в системе человеческих взаимоотношений, но научную значимость проблема приобрела только в первой половине XX века в связи с появлением массовой культуры и проявлением во всей красе феномена тоталитаризма. Несмотря на большое количество научной литературы по данной проблематике, глубинные основания, позволяющие манипуляциям иметь место, так в достаточной мере и не раскрыты.
Исторически первые массовые случаи применения манипуляции крупными общностями в различных регионах и в различные исторические периоды наблюдались на определенном этапе разделения труда. С появлением «агентов божества», т.е. служителей различных культов связывают появление первых манипуляций общественным мнением, мировоззренческим основанием деятельности которых выступил социальный миф [7]. Появилось понимание у властвующих субъектов о том, что человеку самостоятельно сложно определить смысл своего бытия, и есть благодатная почва для манипуляций.
Е.Л. Доценко утверждал, что все человеческие поступки можно расположить на двух осях, где отношение к другому, как к ценности самой по себе, соотносилось с отношением к другому, как к средству достижения своих целей. Он видел пять типов установок на взаимодействие -доминирование, соперничество, партнёрство, содружество и манипуляцию. Манипуляция отличается от других типов отношением к оппоненту, как к вещи особого рода, с тенденцией
