CC BY
16
tUDC: 316.77; 316.74:001
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32689/2617-2224-2020-1(21)-308-319
Chernykh Gennady Andreevich,
Candidate o f Sociology, Assistant l}rofessor, Department of Sector Sociology, Faculty of Sociology, 'laras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 0)6X0, Kyiv, prosp. С lush-kova, 1-d, tel.: + 38 (068) 199 64 85, e-mail: chernykh (")knu.ua
ORCID: 0000-0001-8440-0711
Черных Геннадш Андршович,
кандидат соцюлог1чних наук, асистент кафедри галузевог соцюлоги факультету соцюлоги Кшвського нацюнального утверситету ¡мет Id раса Шевченка; Украгна, 03680, м. Кигв, просп. Глушко-ва, 4-д, тел,: +38 (068) 199 64 85, e-mail: 4 chernykh@knu.ua
ORCID: 0000-0001-8440-0711
Черных Геннадий Андреевич,
кандидат социологических наук, ассистент кафедры отраслевой социологии факультета социологии Киевского национального университета имени Тараса Шевченко, 03680, г. Киев, ул. Глушкова, 4-д, тел.: +380 (68) 199 64 85, е-mail: chernykh@knu.ua
ORCID: 0000-0001-8440-0711
RESEARCH TRADITIONS IN COGNITIVE SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS -LANGUAGE AND MEANING IN SOCIAL INTERACTION
Abstract. The specificity of the development of the research traditions of the cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics is considered in the article. The problems of understanding everyday language at the present stage of the science development are substantiated. The current state of the development of the eth-nomethodological approach, the role of non-verbal communications in everyday communication is analyzed. The author substantiates the nature of the social action, peculiarities of functioning and interaction of the social actors through symbols and meanings. The author analyzes the developed models of the communication interaction by W. Schramm, D. McQuail, J. Grunig, T. Hunt, Y. Habermas,
N. Luman. The content of one of the key concepts of the sociolinguistics — "linguistic situation", which is defined as a set of forms of existence of the language (languages, regional koine, territorial and social dialects) is revealed. The author notes that special attention is paid in the contemporary sociolinguistics to the question of the connection and interaction of the language and culture. The features of the development of the cognitive linguistics as a linguistic trend, which considers the functioning of the language as a kind of cognitive, that is, knowing, activity, and examines the cognitive mechanisms and structures of the human consciousness through linguistic phenomena. The author confirms the basic hypothesis of the cognitive science that the thinking processes can be interpreted as processes of processing and transformation of the mental representations. The author draws on the ideas of the main proponent and representative of the cognitive sociology — American sociologist Aaron Cicourel. Also — substantiates the content of the works of the French sociologist J. Padioleau and the concepts of sociolinguistics A. Meiller, F. Boas, E. Sapir, V. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, J. Vachek and others, who made a significant contribution to the identification of the role of the social factors in the development of the languages and demonstrated the link between the language and the social processes and the social role of the literary language.
Keywords: language, social interaction, cognitive sociology, sociolinguistics, communication, social actions, symbols, meaning, linguistic situation.
ДОСЛ1ДНИЦЬК1 ТРАДИЦП КОГШТИВНО! СОЦЮЛОГП ТА СОЦЮЛШГВЮТИКИ - МОВА ТА ЗНАЧЕННЯ У СОЩАЛЬНШ ВЗАеМОДП
Анотащя. Розглянуто специфшу розвитку дослвдницьких тради-цш когштивно!' лшгвютики та сощолшгвютики. Визначено пробле-ми розумшня буденно!' мови на сучасному еташ розвитку науки. Проа-налiзовано сучасний стан розвитку етнометодолопчного шдходу, ролi невербальних комушкацш у повсякденному сшлкуванш. Обгрунтовано природу сощально!' ди, особливосп функщонування та взаемодп соцiальних акторiв за допомогою символiв i значень. Розглянуто моделi комушкацш-но!" взаемоди У. Шрама, Д. Маккуейла, Дж. Грушга, Т. Ханта, Ю. Габермаса, Н. Лумана. Розкрито змют одного з ключових понять соцiолiнгвiстики -"мовна ситуащя", яке визначаеться як сукупшсть форм iснування мови (мов, регюнальних койне, територiальних i сощальних дiалектiв). Особливу увагу придiлено в сучаснш соцiолiнгвiстицi питанню про зв'язок i взаемо-дiю мови i культури. Також розглянуто особливосп розвитку когштивно!' лiнгвiстики як мовознавчого напряму щодо функцiонування мови як рiз-новиду когнiтивноï, тобто пiзнавальноï, дiяльностi, а когнiтивнi механiзми та структури людсько!' свiдомостi — через мовш явища. Доведено основну гiпотезу когштивно!' науки, що мисленневi процеси можна трактувати як процеси оброблення та перетворення ментальних репрезентацш. Зазначено ще!" основного прихильника та представника когштивно!' сощологи — аме-
риканського соцюлога Аарона Сшурела. Також обгрунтовуеться змiст праць французького соцiолога Ж. Подьоло та концепцп соцiолiнгвiстики А. Мейе, Ф. Боаса, Е. Сетра, В. Матезиуса, Б. Гавранека, Й. Вахека та ш., якi зробили iстотний внесок у виявлення ролi соцiальних чинникiв у розвитку мови та продемонстрували зв'язок мови iз сощальними процесами, а також сощаль-ну роль лпературно! мови.
Ключовi слова: мова, соцiальна взаемодiя, когштивна соцiологiя, со-цiолiнгвiстика, комунiкацiя, сощальш дп, символи, значення, мовна ситуащя.
ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ ТРАДИЦИИ КОГНИТИВНОЙ СОЦИОЛОГИИ И СОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИКИ - ЯЗЫК
И ЗНАЧЕНИЕ В СОЦИАЛЬНОМ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИИ
Аннотация. Рассматрена специфика развития исследовательских традиций когнитивной лингвистики и социолингвистики. Обозначены проблемы понимания обыденного языка на современном этапе развития науки. Анализируется современное состояние этнометодологического подхода, роли невербальных коммуникаций в повседневном общении. Обоснованы природа социального действия, особенности функционирования и взаимодействия социальных акторов с помощью символов и значений. Автор анализирует разработаные модели коммуникационного взаимодействия В. Шрама, Д. Маккуейла, Дж. Грунига, Т. Ханта, Ю. Хабермаса, Н. Лумана. Раскрыто содержание одного из ключевых понятий социолингвистики — "языковая ситуация", которое определяется как совокупность форм существования языка (языков, региональных койне, территориальных и социальных диалектов). Особое внимание в современной социолингвистике уделается вопросу о связи и взаимодействии языка с культурой. Также рассмотрены особенности развития когнитивной лингвистики как языковедческого направления, которое рассматривает функционирование языка как разновидность когнитивного, то есть познавательной деятельности, а когнитивные механизмы и структура человеческого сознания — через языковые явления. Подтверждается основная гипотеза когнитивной науки, что мыслительные процессы можно трактовать как процессы обработки и превращения ментальных репрезентаций. Рассмотренны идеи основного сторонника и представителя когнитивной социологии — американского социолога Аарона Сикурела. Также обосновано содержание работ французского социолога Ж. Подьоло и концепции социолингвистики А. Мейе, Ф. Боаса, Э. Сепира, В. Матезиуса, Б. Гавранека, И. Вахека и других, которые внесли существенный вклад в выявление роли социальных факторов в развитии языка, продемонстрировали связь языка с социальными процессами и социальную роль литературного языка.
Ключевые слова: язык, социальное взаимодействие, когнитивная социология, социолингвистика, коммуникация, социальные действия, символы, значение, языковая ситуация.
Formulation of the problem. This study analyzes the problem of developing such important scientific areas of the language research as:
Formation and development of the everyday communication practices in the structure of the contemporary cultural transformations;
Determination of the linguistic situation and processes of interaction between the language and culture;
Interpreting the mechanisms of the cognitive language rethinking through the sociolinguistic analysis and cognitive sociology.
At the present stage of the scientific knowledge of language, as an integral part of people's cultural development, the scholars have not yet reached a consensus on the study of the language in the general theory. All this is expressed in the pluralism of thoughts, ideas and determinations of the definitions in the modern multiparadigmal space of science. The features of the cultural diversity, national approaches, and schools that are linked to the language studies create the basis for endless analysis and empirical rethinking of the phenomenon. Which in turn complicates the very process of researching, reflecting and understanding the socio-cultural changes that occur in the everyday communicative practices. For example, at this stage in the development of the cognitive sociology and socio-linguistics, the emphasis of research has shifted than at the beginning of the emergence of these scientific lines of the language research. After all, the tremendous changes that have taken place over 100 years of the social development and scientific formation — form quite different determinants of
the senses and meanings of this object-subject research.
In our view, the postmodern world is different from the modern world in that modernity is the world to which all the humanity must come, and post-modernity is the world in which humanity can move to a new milestone of the social development. Therefore, for the researchers of the social world the task is to predict the possibilities of shaping the modern world for all the mankind and the features of the development of the postmodern reality.
Based on the principles of the modern language research, the contemporary postmodern development tendencies are expanded by interpretations of the senses and meanings. New social and theoretical constructs are being constructed, which do not always become part of the scientific revolution and social reality, and only with the passage of time do they become institutionalized in the science and life.
Analysis of the recent research and publications. The fundamentals of the sociological research in the USSR were laid in the 20-30's and 20th century, the works of the Soviet scientists L. P. Yaku-binsky, V.V. Vinohradov, B. A. Larin, V.M. Zhirmunsky, H. A. Shor, M. V. Ser-hiyevsky, E. D. Polivanov, who studied the language as a social phenomenon on the basis of Marxist understanding of the language as a social phenomenon and historical and materialistic principles of the analysis of the social relations. Basic ideas for the contemporary sociolinguistics were also prepared by the works of the representatives of the sociological field in the French linguistics (A. Maye), who made a significant contribution to the identification of the
role of the social factors in the language development; the works of the American ethno-linguists who developed the ideas of F. Boas and E. Sapir in connection with the linguistic and socio-cultural systems; the works of the representatives of the Prague Linguistic School — V. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, I. Vakhek, who demonstrated the connection of the language with the social processes and the social role of the literary language; the research by the German scholars, especially T. Frings and the Leipzig school he founded, which substantiated the socio-historical approach to language and the need to include the social dimension in dialectology; the original works in the field of linguistic situation and culture of speech of the Japanese school of the "linguistic existence".
In the 1960's and 1970's the interest in the sociological problems of the language grew in connection with, on the one hand, the needs of the modern society, for which the problems of the language policy and other practical aspects of the sociolinguistics became increasingly relevant, and, on the other, the critique of the structural linguistics with the desire to overcome the limited immanent approach to language and to penetrate more deeply into the nature of the language as a social phenomenon
The sociolinguistic trends developed by the scientists from different countries are characterized by different methodological orientations. Some areas of the foreign sociolinguistics (for example, in the USA) focus on the behaviourist model of linguistic behaviour, symbolic-interactionist theory of the social interaction, phenomenologi-cal sociology. The sociolinguistics de-
veloped in the USSR and some other countries relied primarily on the historical materialism and private theories of the Marxist sociology — the theory of the social structure of the society, the theory of the social systems, the sociology of the personality, etc.
However, it should be noted that sociology views the communication as a socially conditioned type of the human activity. Psychology examines the process of establishing and developing contacts between the people for the purpose of sharing information. Linguists present the communication process as an actualization of the communicative function of the language in particular linguistic situations. The main element of the language communication is the mechanism by which the process of transmission and perception of the information is translated into a socially significant result of personal and mass influence. In the sociolinguis-tic aspect it is necessary to study first of all the peculiarities of the language functioning in the context of the mass social communication.
Here in the foreground, for our study, comes the concept of "linguistic situation", which we interpret as a set of forms of existence of the language (languages, regional koine, territorial and social dialects). Which, in turn, defines different methodological approaches to the study of the language and values in the social interaction. With the changing of the linguistic situation — the culture changes, which in turn changes the language and meaning itself. With globalization new conditions for the language development are being created. There is an increasing amount of borrowing along the lines
of the cultural information dissemination, the so-called sharing mechanisms, and feedback, which is important in today's cultural and informational space. Cultural diffusion is increasingly occurring — the spatial spread of the cultural achievements of one society into another. With the development of the cultural dynamics — there is a development of the modern world, and the intensity of these dynamics in the modern world is striking in scale. The explosion of the information — the rapid increase in the number of publications or the volume of data and the resulting effect — has become the driving force behind the culture of the intellectuals of the modern world. For the five previous years the humanity has produced more information than ever before. In our opinion, it significantly complicates the possibilities of the critical study of the language and values in the social interaction — at the present stage of the scientific development.
The modern field of study of the language and communication is based on different approaches, F. V. Sharkov identifies several approaches [1]. The first methodological approach is based on the classical positivist methodology of the subject-object dispositions. It is represented by the concepts of the structural functionalism, systemic approach, informational society, technological determinism, computer futurology, etc. The ontology of the social communications in this approach is based on systemic connections and functions. The communication technologies have the task of constructing the desired image of the subject and certain social connections in the system. This approach is comparable to the principle
of the classical cybernetics, which implies tight control over the behaviour of the system, which eliminates all the unnecessary interconnections [1].
Obviously, various communication models are constructed by function, content, form, goals and objectives. The following models of communication find practical application in the integrative systems today:
1. The authoritarian model, described by W. Schramm and D. Mc-Quail, is based on the maximum restriction on freedom of the information and tight administrative and managerial control over media activity [2, P. 148].
2. The bilateral asymmetric model is one of the four models proposed by J. Grunig and T. Hunt that emerged in the 1920s of the 20th century, incorporating feedback that preserves the power of the communicator over the communication, which creates a certain asymmetry [3].
3. The bilateral symmetric model — originated in the 60-70s of the 20th century, described by J. Grunig and T. Hunt [3], it states that the symmetry is achieved by a balanced relationship between the recipient and the sender of the message.
4. The non-classical methodology — based on a cognitive model of the subject-object relations about an object. The author of this methodology, the German philosopher Y. Habermas, prefers the positive science in the study of the social subjects. As a tool for realizing people's practical interests, he views interpersonal "interactions" (communication) as a way of emancipation, liberation from all kinds of influence (politics, economics, etc.) and coercion. Y. Habermas distinguish-
es "true" communications from "false" communications, trying to justify the "technical rationality" of transferring the technical means and methods to the interpersonal communications [4, p. 115].
The post-non-classical approach — based on the works of N. Luman, it reduces the nature of the social to the subject-subject relations, excluding objectivity. The society is regarded as a network of communications, and communications have the opportunity to self-describe the society and its self-reproduction (principles of self-referentiality and autopoiesis of N. Luman). The communication in this case appears as an active self-organized environment, where the simplest social-communication systems are formed through mutual coordination of the actions and experiences of the participants of the communication. The society covers all the actions that can be compared to each other in the communication. Action is understood as a true element of the social system, which is produced and perceived in it in relation (communication) with other actions-events [5].
However, as we have already noted, in the sociological discourse of the language analysis and communication interaction there is a tradition of a plural infinite world of models: starting with the Aristotle's model ("Speaker-Speech-Audience") and ending with the M. McLuhan's theory of communication. All these models can be relatively reduced to macro and micro level analysis. Macro-level communication models (theories) are much lesser than micro-level analysis. Which speaks to the complexity of the fundamental re-
flection of communication in the social systems on a global scale — in their traditional sense.
Formulation of the purposes (goal) of the article. Therefore, based on a meaningful analysis of the above theoretical principles, the goal of this article is to substantively systematize the problems that exist in the structure of understanding of the cognitive sociology and sociolinguistics. And the analysis of the reflection in the scientific discourse of the traditional contradictions of the language research and the meaning in the social interaction.
To meet this goal, we set out to analyze the ideas of the cognitive sociology of the American sociologist A. Cicourel, J. Padioleau, and the traditional approaches of the sociolinguis-tic direction of research. Based on the analysis of the works of A. Cicourel — we found:
1. There are three stages to the construction of the social reality by the people (subjects). The first stage is the subjective organization and classification of "empiricism" (experience) in the simple (elementary) acts of "speaking", the second stage is the manifestation of the "theoretical concepts", the third stage is related to the subjective analysis of the conversation or text.
2. The main concepts for the cognitive sociology are:
• methods of interpretation, "aiming to connect the ideas of phenomenology and ethnomethodology and to relate them to works relating to the use of language, memory and attention, or in general to everything related to the field of information processing;
• interactional competence, "which helps to clarify the relationship be-
tween the cognitive processes, the emergence of contexts, and accounting dictionaries".
3. A. Cicourel as a whole remained far from overcoming the interactionist approach and establishing new forms of communication with the macrosocial aspects of the reality. Reflecting on a common tradition — the one we gave you earlier.
4. The sociological analysis also extends to the field of the non-verbal communication (through the study of the language of the deaf), which is not reducible to the model of the verbal communication. A. Cicourel reveals the fact that the actors and researchers in their cognitive activity are forced to rely on the common methods of interpretation. A researcher "can make his observations objective only if he explains the peculiarities of the methods of interpretation and its dependence on them, that is, if his research activities are complete". Thus, the pursuit of the scientific objectivity in the social sciences implies a need for sociological reflexivity. Finally, the question arises about the connection with macrosocial aspects, since it is about "explicating the role of the knowledge and context in the study of the social structure". In particular, through the procedures of "acquiring a social structure" in the course of socialization [6, p. 36-38].
5. According to A. Cicourel, "the representatives of microsociology can not be limited to the study of the social interaction as a local and self-sufficient product, just as the theorists of macro-sociology can not ignore the micropro-cesses" [7].
In the mid-80s in France one could observe an increased interest in the
cognitive dimension of the social action. In this connection, among others, one can call the works of Jean Padiole-au or Bernard Conen, which, however, raise issues more characteristic of the cognitive sciences (including, in particular, the biological, psychological, linguistic sciences, as well as the science of the artificial intelligence). But given the nature of the dialogue that Jean Padioleau and Bernard Conen engage in with the cognitive sciences, one might ask whether we are at risk when, for example, trying to establish points of contact with ethology, to fall into naturalism that tries to build the social sciences in the image of natural sciences? This question remains open for further study.
The French sociologist J. Padioleau tried to solve one of the most difficult social problems, the problem of the social order, using a cognitive approach. In his view, the nature of the social action is cognitive, and the social actor is a "sociological, cognitive" person who creates his or her social representations through symbols and meanings. Under a symbol he means that "represents another thing: the symbol takes the place of another object, replaces it or evokes a memory of it" [8].
The collective interdependence of the actions of the people, according to Padioleau, is conditioned by mutual expectations. Collective actions involve the consent of the partners regarding the rules of the decision making. However, from a cognitive perspective, the consensus does not come down to a simple agreement between the individuals. It arises in the coordination of the mutual perception by the social actors in relation to a particular subject.
Cognitive sociology, therefore, helps to define the interesting tradition of theoretically constructing a combination of the macro and micro world-views of the language, symbols and meanings. Although this area of science has not acquired universal institutionalization, and is not particularly popular in the scientific world (rather than cognitive psychology), it is important in interpreting the traditional views of the language and meaning in the social interaction. In our view, cognitive sociology needs more in-depth reflection and thorough analysis in order to develop the social sciences in a postmodern outlook. After all, based on our research, we confirm the basic hypothesis of the cognitive science that thinking processes can be interpreted as processes of processing and transformation of the mental representations, which is a kind of tradition of the analysis.
Another important area of the language analysis is sociolinguistics, which studies the impact of the social phenomena and processes on the emergence, development, social and functional differentiation and functioning of the languages, as well as the reverse effect of the language on the society.
The object of the sociolinguistics is the language in the aspect of social differentiation, and the subject is the functioning of the language "in the social context", that is, the functioning of the language(s) in the structure of the social relations and functions of the society.
Sociolinguistics originated in the field of linguistics, sociology, social psychology and ethnography in the second half of the 20th century.
Unlike the non-linguistic branch of the sociology of language, which aims
to explain the social and political phenomena based on linguistic facts, the sociology elucidates the functional nature of the language in the society. The need for isolation of the socio-linguistics in the system of linguistic disciplines was caused not only by the internal factors of generalization and systematization of the aspects of communication between the language and society, but also by external factors — above all, by the process of decolonization and the creation of numerous independent states, which needed to resolve its urgent issues and relations with other languages within the independent states.
The term "sociolinguistics" was introduced in 1952 by the American sociologist H. Curry. The official date of origin of this industry is 1963, in which the Committee on Sociolinguistics was formed in the United States. In the 70's courses in sociolinguistics were officially included in the programs of the American universities.
The forerunner of the sociolinguis-tics was the sociological trend in linguistics. In it, the language was considered primarily as a means of the communication and human activity in the society, taking into account social status and the role of the individual; it eclectically combined the methodologically diverse ideas of the Enlightenment philosophy, the psychological direction of the linguistics, Marxist philosophy, the philosophy of positivism, but its task was clearly aimed at the social nature of the language, its communicative function, the relationship of the language and the society, the language and the socially engaged individual.
Representatives of the sociological direction of linguistics (France — A. Maye, F. Bruno; Switzerland — S. Bally, A. Seche; United Kingdom — J. Fors, USA — U. Wittney, E. Sepir, B. Worf; Czech Republic — V. Mathezius, USSR — L. Shcherba, L. Yakubinsky, E. Polivanov, V. Zhirmundsky, B. Larin, M. Marr, G. Vinokur) investigated the place and role of the language in the society, functional stratification of the language, communication of the languages and cultures, the functioning of the language in different social situations, the connection between the language, society and personality; explained the causes of the language changes and the evolution of the languages by the social factors, in particular, the differentiation of the languages — the displacement of the peoples, the unification — the wars, the evolution of the language — the complication of the social relations, the sound changes — the pragmatic needs of the society as a convenience of pronunciation.
Researchers distinguish three trends in the modern sociolinguistics:
1) the first is focused on sociology (examines the norms of the language use, the goal of choosing the language options, diglossia, bilingualism, the theory of gyrus codes from various social determinants),
2) the second focuses on linguistics and examines the heterogeneity of the language system in terms of social settings, as well as the relationship of the language changes to social conditions;
3) the third has ethnographic and methodological orientation [9].
The main vectors of the sociolin-guistic research are the problems of the linguistic situation, the language
collective, the social functions of the language, its forms of existence in the society, the social differentiation of the languages depending on the diversity of the social strata (stratification) and social situations (situational), bilin-gualism, pollinguism, linguistic mixing, linguistic policy, norms, linguistic construction.
There are the following sociolin-guistic directions:
1) macro-sociolinguistics, which studies the linguistic situations in the states, regions, groups, analyzes the language contacts and their consequences, observes the language conflicts and language changes depending on the social changes, explores the social differentiation of the national languages, bilingualism, normalization and codification of the language, language policy and construction;
2) micro-sociolinguistics, which focuses on individual speech or speech of the micro-groups, the rules and norms of its implementation, on the acquisition of communicative competence and its effective use, in relation of the individuals to the language [10].
Therefore, in the context of the development of the sociolinguistics, we can again see the tradition of separating the macro and micro-levels of research, without mentioning the so-called me-so-level. Which emphasizes the form of the general scientific theorizing in the contemporary sociological discourse. In most cases, such binaries are caused by the nature of the scientific knowledge, the cognitive methods of inquiry that follow from the tradition of ob-jectivist and subjectivist socio-philo-sophical directions. Nominalism and realism build a tradition of learning the
language and meaning as a form of representation of micro (individual development) and macro (collective development). In our view, only a synthesis of these two worldviews and traditions can lead to a profound change in the traditional analysis in the postmodern scientific discourse.
Conclusions and prospects for further research. 1. Cognitive sociology and sociolinguistics are elements of the traditional scientific analysis of the language and meanings, senses that are built on the knowledge of macro and micro-levels of the social reality. 2. The modern sociological interpretations of the language in the models and theories of the communication interaction are based on the ideologies of the classical and non-classical research methodology. The basis is the positivist direction of the study, which speaks about the complexity of the fundamental reflection of the communication in the social systems at the global postmodern level — in their traditional sense. 3. The language as a social phenomenon has traditionally been associated with a multi-paradigmatic scientific system of explanations for its meanings, which are interpreted through such connections in the social reality as: language and society; language and personality; language and culture; language and ethnicity; language — territorial and social dialects; language and wars; and other. Which reflects a certain "linguistic situation" — the tradition of the scientific study of its forms and meanings. The study of the traditional views on language and meaning allows us to establish what is particularly important in understanding these phenomena — a sociological reflection that allows us
to distinguish the synergistic models of the plural interpretations. Which in turn substantiates the general tendencies and traditions of further study of the language and meanings.
The prospect of further research is determined at the root of the traditions of the socio-philosophical theorizing, which deliberately creates all the conditions for the diversity of the models of studies of the macro and micro-levels of the social reality. Allows you to find endless forms of interpretation and reflection on the object and subject under the study. Important for the development of the scientific methodology are the study of language and meanings in the information society in the face of the rapid changes and the spread of various forms of mass communication produced by the information and communication technologies. The modern tradition should be guided by the futur-ological basis of the study of linguistic cultural codes both in the information space of communication between the individuals and in the measurement of the social interactions caused by the development of globalization. In our view, the researchers need to come to a consensus (as noted by Y. Habermas in his theory of communicative action) of the use of the cognitive sociology and so-ciolinguistics, and to bring it to life by forming new postmodern traditions and models of the social reality research.
REFERENCES -
1. Sharkov, F.I. (2017). Kommunikologi-ya: osnovyi teorii kommunikatsii [Communicology: the basics of communication theory]. Moscow: Dash-kov and Co [in Russian].
2. McQuail D. Mass Communication Theory: an Introduction / D. McQuail. - London: SAGE, 1987. - 632 p.
3. Grunig J. Public Relation Theory / J. Grunig. - N.Y., 1998. - P. 29-41.
4. Habermas Yu. (2001). Moralnoe soz-nanie i kommunikativnoe deystvie [Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action]. SPb.: "Nauka" [in Russian].
5. Luman N. (2004). Obschestvo kak sotsialnaya sistema [Society as a social system]. Moscow: Logos [in Russian].
6. Korkyuf F. (2002) Novyie sotsiologii [New sociology]. St. Petersburg: Ale-theia [in Russian].
7. Cicourel A. V. Notes on the Integration of Micro- and Macro-Levels of Analysis/ A. V. Cicourel, Eds. K. Knorr-Cetina // Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro Sociologies. Boston: Routledge and Ke-gan Paul, 1981. P. 53.
8. Podolo Zh. (1990) Sotsialnyiy poryad-ok: printsipyi sotsiologicheskogo analiza [Social order: principles of sociological analysis]. Moscow [in Russian].
9. Vahtin N. B. (2004). Sotsiolingvistika i sotsiologiya yazyika: Uchebnoe po-sobie [Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language: Training manual]. St. Petersburg: IC "Humanitarian Academy" [in Russian].
10. Churilina L. N. (2009) Aktualnyie problemyi sovremennoy lingvistiki: Uchebnoe posobie [Actual problems of modern linguistics: training manual]. Moscow [in Russian].
СПИСОК ВИКОРИСТАНИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ -
1. Шарков Ф. И. Коммуникология: основы теории коммуникации /
Ф. И. Шарков. М.: Дашков и К, 2017. 488 с.
2. McQuail D. Mass Communication Theory: an Introduction / D. McQuail. London: SAGE, 1987. 632 p.
3. Grunig J. Public Relation Theory / J. Grunig. - N.Y., 1998. - P. 29-41.
4. Хабермас Ю. Моральное сознание и коммуникативное действие / Ю. Хабермас. СПб.: Наука, 2001. 380 с.
5. Луман Н. Общество как социальная система / Н. Луман. М.: Логос, 2004. 232 с.
6. Коркюф Ф. Новые социологии / Ф. Коркюф; пер. с фр. Е. Д. Вознесенской, М. В. Федоровой;науч. ред. Н. А. Шматко. - М: Ин-т экспериментальной социологии; СПб.: Алетейя, 2002 г. 172 с.
7. Cicourel A.V. Notes on the Integration of Micro- and Macro-Levels of Analysis/ Eds. K. Knorr-Cetina, A. V. Cicourel // Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro Sociologies. -Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. - P. 53.
8. Подьоло Ж. Социальный порядок: принципы социологического анализа / Ж. Подьоло // Современная западная социология: классические традиции и поиски новой парадигмы. М., 1990. С. 93-110.
9. Вахтин Н. Б. Социолингвистика и социология языка: Учеб. пособие / Н. Б. Вахтин, Е. В. Головко. СПб.: ИЦ "Гуманитарная академия"; Изд-во Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2004. 336 с.
10. Чурилина Л. Н. Актуальные проблемы современной лингвистики: Учеб. пособие / Л. Н. Чурилина. М., 2009. С. 107-135, 307-342.
