CC BY
0
THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC PARADIGM OF MODERN LINGUISTICS
Akbar kyzy Kanykei, Lecturer A.Z. Malikova, Lecturer S.M. Abdisatarova, Lecturer Osh State University (Kyrgyzstan, Osh)
DOI:10.24412/2500-1000-2024-4-1-192-195
Abstract. The article talks about the status of anthropological linguistics as an integral science, the basic concepts of which are human and language in their indissoluble unity in its unambiguous formulation "human in language". Also, the authors investigate human cognitive and linguocultural activity in the framework of anthropocentric paradigm, the consideration of conceptualisation and categorisation as the main processes of cognitive activity of the human mind, the interpretation of the concept as a basic unit of the human mental world and as a consequence of culture.
Keywords: linguistics, anthropology, human being, person, concept, linguoculture, language.
Thinking about the new linguistic directions of the linguistics of the end of the XX -beginning of the XXI century, their origins, prospects for further development and problems, it is necessary to deal with such questions as:
1) which of the many existing strands of modern linguistics are new, and which strands are adequately consolidated in the consciousness of scientists;
2) whether the new strands of linguistics are autonomous, that is, whether they have their own conceptual space; what they are - a science, a strand, a branch, a field, a theory, a term;
3) what, given the existing fragmented nature of the new strands of linguistics, ensures their inner cohesion [1].
At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, one of the leading directions in linguistic research was anthropocentrism. A huge amount of material on the system and structure of language, its functioning and development had been accumulated in linguistics by that time. This allowed a clearer understanding of the fact that language is not only a means of communication, but also an embodiment of people's spiritual and material experience, a reflection of the cultural, social and historical environment, as well as a means of influencing the national view of the world. If in philosophy we understand anthropocentrism as the position of man as the centre and the ultimate goal
of the universe, then in linguistics we study language from the position of a mother tongue speaker" a human in language". The focus is on questions related to the feelings of a person living in the conditions of this or that language. The processes of a person's cognitive and creative thinking activity and their reflection in language are analysed.
According to I.A. Baudouin de Courte-nay [2], «language exists only in a single mind, only in a single soul, only in a single mind of a single person or of a single members of a particular linguistic society». This scientific paradigm sets new tasks in language research, requires new methods of describing language, new approaches to analysing its units and categories.
Anthropolinguistics, the study of the relationship between language and culture, usually referring to work on languages with no written record. In the United States, anthropology and linguistics developed a close relationship. This was the result of anthropologists' research into the cultures and languages of the American Indians. The early students in this field discovered what they believed to be significant relationships between the languages, the thought and the cultures of the Native American groups.
Human perceives the world through his awareness of himself, his theoretical and objective activity in it, from the position of the anthropocentric paradigm. The realization of
oneself as the measure of all things gives man the right to create in his consciousness an an-thropocentric order of things, which can be studied not at the everyday level, but at the scientific level. Human's spiritual essence, the motives for his actions and the hierarchy of values are determined by this order that exists in his mind, in his consciousness. All this can be understood by studying people's speech, the turns and expressions they use most frequently, the ones they care about the most. The essence of the anthropocentric model of research is that the person becomes the starting point for the study of certain phenomena. He or she is involved in this analysis and determines its perspectives, final goals and results.
No abstract theory can provide an answer to the question of why it is possible to think of feeling as fire and to speak of the flame of love, the heat of the heart, the warmth of friendship, etc. The knowledge of oneself as the measure of all things gives man the right to create in his consciousness an anthropometric order of things, which can be studied not on an everyday level, but on a scientific level. Man's spiritual essence, the motives for his actions, the hierarchy of values are determined by this order which exists in his mind, in his consciousness [3]. All this can be understood by studying the language of a human being, the turns of phrase and the expressions which he uses most often, for which he shows the greatest degree of sympathy.
The interest of linguistic researchers for the interrelation and intersubjectivity of language and the internal world of human beings, for the problems of the specificity of human knowledge and its linguistic reflection, and for the identification of the specificity of linguistic images of the world has been stable and extensive. For those interested in these issues, the anthropological principle of research can be found in the works of Sapir, W. Gumboldt, Y.D. Apresyan,
N.D. Arutyunova, Whorf, A. Vezhbitskaya, E.S. Kubryakova and many others.
Thus, W. Humboldt [4] was of the opinion that the study of language is subordinate to "the purpose of the knowledge of man himself and his attitude towards everything visible
and hidden around him". The anthropological approach implies the inclusion of the "linguistic personality" in the object of linguistics (from the content of science to its history), according to Y.N. Karaulov [5].
Despite the fact that the principles of an-thropocentrism have been interpreted in different ways, it is clear that the position of the scientist has changed: "from the contemplation of linguistic elements, through their inventory and classification, to the study of linguistic phenomena from a human perspective". Thus, in the last few decades, linguistics, both national and foreign, has changed the vector, the paradigm of development, placing the human being, who creates and uses language, at the centre of attention. In other words, it heralded a new - anthropocentric - approach to the study of language.
Areas of linguistic research such as lin-guoculturology, cognitive linguistics, psycho-linguistics, etc. have emerged and developed successfully in line with the ideas and problems of the anthropocentric paradigm.
Anthropocentrism, which pervades and encompasses all areas and aspects of the study of language and culture and the study of language and cognition, causes and enables points of contact between these two distinct linguistic directions, both in the objects and subjects of research and in the goals and tasks of the study of various types of concepts. The term "concept" is defined as "the lump of culture in the human mind, the form in which culture enters the mental world of human beings, and the means by which human beings, ordinary human beings who are not "creators of cultural values", themselves enter and sometimes affect culture. Essentially, the concept authorises the impersonal, objective concept of the ethnosemantic person as the basic national-cultural prototype of the bearer of this system of natural-language semantics.
Language is a phenomenon that is quite complex and multi-faceted. In order to do justice to this fact, it is presented in the form of several images:
1) language as a person's language,
2) language as a member of a linguistic family,
3) language as a construction,
4) language as a scheme,
5) language as a type and sign,
6) language as a calculator,
7) language as a space of thought and "house of the mind".
At the end of the twentieth century, language was also seen as "a product of culture, as its important component and condition for existing, as a factor in forming cultural codes". New attitudes and new objectives of language research, new key concepts and new methodologies have emerged.
In this way, the emergence of the anthro-pocentric paradigm has resulted in the "turning of language issues towards the person and the person's place in culture, because the focus of attention of culture and cultural tradition is the linguistic personality as a whole": Me-physical, Me-social, Me-intellectual, Me-emotional, Me-thinking" [6]
At the present time, there are various approaches to the study of the linguistic personality. First of all, this term is understood as a person as a carrier of language, from the side of his or her ability to speak, essentially a linguistic personality. It is also understood as a set of characteristics of the verbal behaviour of a person who uses language to communi-
cate - communicative personality. Lastly, "linguistic personality" can be understood as a basic national-cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, which is mainly fixed in the lexical system, a kind of "semantic outline", which is created on the basis of attitudes towards the world, value priorities, behaviour reactions reflected in the vocabulary, vocabulary personality, ethnic-semantic personality.
The anthropocentric paradigm, therefore, places humans at the forefront, and language is seen as their main feature, their most important element. Culture and language are "anthropocentric entities, they are in the human being, they serve the human being and they have no meaning without the human being". Linguistic cultural studies is a "product" of the anthropocentric paradigm of modern linguistics. The linguistic personality and the linguistic concept are its basic categories, which "reflect the mentality and the mentalities of the generalised speaker of a natural language and provide this scientific discipline with a research tool for the reconstruction of the prototypical image of the "human speaker".
Reference
1. Ardener E. Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth, and University of Sussex. Social anthropology and language. A.S.A. monographs. Vol. 10. London, New York: Tavistock Publications, 1971.
2. Baudouin de Courtenay, I.A. General linguistics. Selected works / I.A. Baudouin de Cour-tenay. - Moscow: Yurait Publishing House, 2024. - 329 p. - (Anthology of thought). -ISBN 978-5-534-11836-0.
3. Sapir E. The grammarian and his language // American Mercury. - 1924. - № 1. - P. 149155.
4. Humboldt W. Language and philosophy of culture. - M.
5. Karaulov Y.N. Linguistic construction and thesaurus of the literary language. - M.: Nauka, 1981.
6. Murzin L.N. About linguoculturalology, its content and methods // COLLEGIUM. - 1997.
АНТРОПОЦЕНТРИЧЕСКАЯ ПАРАДИГМА СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ЛИНГВИСТИКИ
Акбар кызы Каныкей, преподаватель А.З. Маликова, преподаватель С.М. Абдисатарова, преподаватель Ошский государственный университет (Кыргызстан, г. Ош)
Аннотация. В статье рассматривается статус антропологической лингвистики как целостной науки, основными понятиями которой являются человек и язык в их неразрывном единстве в однозначной формулировке «человек в языке». Также авторы исследуют когнитивную и лингвокультурную деятельность человека в рамках антропоцентрической парадигмы, рассмотрения концептуализации и категоризации как основных процессов когнитивной деятельности человеческого разума, трактовки концепта как основной единицы ментального мира человека и как следствия культуры.
Ключевые слова: лингвистика, антропология, человек, личность, концепт, лингвокуль-тура, язык.
