CC BY
11«етуушшим-шишаи» #ш<тш®х 2022 / philological sciences
55
PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
УДК 81'38; 801.6; 808
Israfilova Gulmar Fakhraddin kizi
Candidate of philological sciences, associate professor Azerbaijan University of Languages, Azerbaijan, Baku DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2022-36159-55-60 THE FACTS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE PICTURE OF THE WORLD AND ITS USAGE AS THE
CATEGORY OF COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
Исрафилова Гюльмар Фахраддин кызы
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент
Азербайджанский Университет Языков
ФАКТЫ О ЯЗЫКОВОЙ КАРТИНЕ МИРА И ЕЕ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИИ КАК КАТЕГОРИИ
КОГНИТИВНОЙ ЛИНГВИСТИКИ
Abstract.
The article deals with the problem of correlation of linguistic and conceptual models of the world in the process of modeling objective reality. The scientific substantiations of the relationship between linguistic and conceptual pictures of the world, the main content elements of the compared pictures of the world and the basic categories of cognitive linguistics and the so-called linguistic picture of the world is highlighted in the article. The linguistic picture of the world is a peculiar form of conceptualization of facts and phenomena of the world, the division of the world and the consolidation of this division mainly by verbal means of natural language. The materials of the etymology observed in Azerbaijani and Russian languages reveals the self-sufficient abilities of language in creating the picture of the world. The linguistic picture of the world proceeds from the ethno-subjective (national-individual) nature of not only the formal, but also the semantic aspects of the language. The words and their cognitive and conception meanings in two languages were analyzed in the article. Based on the carried research, the author concludes that there is a need for further linguistic research of the linguistic picture of the world through the logical and philosophical aspects of studying the problem.
Аннотация.
В статье рассматривается проблема соотношения лингвистической и концептуальной схемы мира в процессе моделирования объективной реальности. А также разъясняются научные обоснования взаимосвязи лингвистической и концептуальной картины мира, содержательные элементы картины мира и основные категории когнитивной лингвистики и так называемой лингвистической картины мира. Языковая картина мира - это своеобразная форма концептуализации фактов и явлений окружающего мира, разделение мира и закрепление этого разделения путем вербальных средств естественного языка. Материалы этимологии, наблюдаемые в азербайджанском и русском языках, раскрывают самодостаточные способности языка в создании картины мира. Языковая картина мира исходит из этносубъективной (национально-индивидуальной) природы не только формальных, но и семантических аспектов языка. В статье были проанализированы слова и их когнитивные и концептуальные значения в двух языках. На основании проведенного исследования автор приходит к выводу о необходимости дальнейшего лингвистического исследования языковой картины мира через логические и философские аспекты изучения проблемы.
Keywords: concept, fragments, lingvodidactic, phenomena, charting the world
Ключевые слова: концепт, фрагмент, лингводидактика, феномен, картина мира
Introduction. One of the central categories of cognitive linguistics is the so-called linguistic picture of the world. This concept is no less complex phenomenon in the system of cognitive linguistics than the internal form of a linguistic sign - words, utterances, phraseology, etc. The concept of a linguistic picture of the world also has deep historical roots. In a certain sense, it does not belong to the intellectual activity of modern linguists-cognitologists. Back in the 80s of the nineteenth century, N.P.Gilyarov-Platonov started talking about this concept and characterized the architectonics of the linguistic picture of the world (LPW), "comparing it with the network through which one or another people perceives the surrounding reality" (14,
Russian philosophers about language. M.Yaroslavl, p.167-168).
Based on the material of the "creative etymology" Gilyarov-Platonov reveals the self-sufficient abilities of language in creating the picture of the world; the reality that a person creates with the help of language: the creativity of human thinking is reflected in the creation of these fragments, from which the whole picture of language is formed; this ability of language G.-Pla-tonov calls the "conscience of language": "Have you ever thought about the verb "to fawn"? Fawning is "I love her"," but used not in the sense of true love, but crafty, hypocritical, flattering; "By fawning - he assures love, but he himself is a sneak in his soul ...." . The
reduction of the meaning, the transformation of the same word from a respectful name into a humorous and contemptuous nickname is what we call a manifestation of conscience in language. "The language looked at itself, condemned its infatuation and laughed at itself... " (3, Gilyarov-Platonov N.P., p.42-46). As can be seen, when determining the Linguistic picture of the world, Gilyarov-Platonov proceeds from the ethno-subjective (national-individual) nature of not only the formal, but also the semantic aspects of the language. This idea subsequently became almost a common place in the understanding of the structuration of the Linguistic picture of the world, the perception of the mechanism of this phenomenon in the works of L.Weisgerber, G.V.Kolshansky and some other researchers.
So, the German linguist L.Weisgerber, formulating his ideas about the Linguistic picture of the world, puts forward the central thesis for his conseption that the structure of an utterance, the structure of a sentence is an exact correspondence to the "organization of the world native language" (18, Wittgenstein L., p.172). L. Wittgenstein expressed himself in approximately the same spirit at the time: "The boundaries of my language (the only language that I understand) mean the boundaries of my world" (18, Wittgenstein L., p. 8). V.A. Zvegintsev writes about this: "The process of cognition is the activity of thought aimed at building an internal (in consciousness) model of the world given in experience. At the same time, language objectifies this model in the activity of communication, making it the basis of communication" (19, Zvegintsev V.A., p.174). Developing this idea of Zvegintsev, G.V.Kolshansky notes the duality of the fact "picture of the world" with cognition in general: "The picture of the world is created by cognition, not by language" (6, Koltsova L.M., Chu-rikov S.A., p.177). In other words, in the process of generating a picture of the world, the prerogative is given to the general laws of thinking - cognitive thinking, rather than to the power of the "spirit" of language.
In connection with this problem, theories of the linguistic picture of the world have been sounding more and more different in their lately foundations. So, V.N.Telia calls to differentiate the fields of activity of human consciousness - physical, mental and cognitive (mastering the world through knowledge) - and the specifics of their mechanism during the "creation of the world". Moreover, Telia generally considers the reflection of the world in consciousness and the "linguization (verbalization)" of this reflection to be a problem not linguistic, but purely epistemological (16, Tarlanov Z.K., p. 66), although after some analysis of specific linguistic material, attempts to interpret the creation of a particular type of LPW from the standpoint of so-called linguocreative thinking.
Methods. As for possible discrepancies in different languages in the physical representation of the facts of reality, V.N.Telia considers them discrepancies in the "details" of the nominative division of the world: "in one language this "charting" may be more detailed than in another" (16, 68). The above is supported by examples of mismatch, for example, color combinations, designations of parts of the day, etc.: Azerbaijani "goy-yafil"(blue-green), "goy-mavi" (dark blue) are not
always distinguished in the same way as in German, or the Azerbaijani "dagitayi" and the Russian "sole of the mountain" do not coincide with the figurative-anthropomorphic representation, Russian "dump-lings"(ne^bMeHH) and Azerbaijani (dyuijbare). However, the facts of the presence/absence of analogies cannot serve as a basis for a purely theoretical interpretation of the nature of the LPW or the fragment of the picture of the world, apparently, cannot serve as a basis, since in some languages these lexemes or metaphorical designations do not correspond at all.
And, paradoxically, neither the forms and cases of coincidence of designations-nominations, nor the cases of mirrored duplication of forms finally clarify the mechanisms of conception, "creation" of these fragments of the LPW: discrepancies are a reflection of the individual-national characteristics of the language "having remembered" the situation so and not otherwise, but complete coincidences are the universal laws of "vision" imposed on the language by the speaker, the perceiving subject, the mapping of the world that underlie the subject-figurative thinking of the cognizing subject. Therefore, unfolding the question of the linguistic picture of the world (LPW) we can proceed only from the basis of lexical and metaphorical units. The identity of lexemes in many languages is often due to the organization, structuring of the linguistic picture of the world (LPW), it can be the result of a single source, i.e. the proto-language: new (English), hob^ih (Russian), nuya (Persian), etc.
Results. In our opinion, for the interpretation of the linguistic picture of the world (LPW) mechanism, the most convenient and sturdy material is the case of stable verbal complexes. So, interesting are the cases of "charting the world" by a person who recognizes the heliocentric system of the microcosm: the sun has risen, gun dogdu, the sun has set, gun batdi, etc., when language becomes an instrument of describing the reality (in reality, as we already know from astronomy, the sun does nothing that we attribute to it), but a model of displaying the world, which (model) is generated in the consciousness and thinking of a person, language becomes the result of this subjective vision of the lingui-zation of the world. Such a creation of a picture of the world is, apparently, the basis of our mythological thinking, when a person creates even a transcendental world unknown to him. Thus, as V.N. Telia says, language "colors" signs that do not even belong to reality, i.e. the world being mastered; cognitive strategies of thinking, their patterns are manifested, as is already known, on the material of individual layers of the lex-ico-grammatical system of the language in different ways. The cognitive capabilities of a predicate verb or noun, numerical designations or adjectives cannot coincide in ontology: verbs, nominating nouns are direct, they are almost always self-sufficient even for the representation of "one-phrase texts" such as "To fight and search, to find and not break loose", (to break not build), proverbs and popular expressions. But numerals or adjectives are always (except in cases of substantiation) accompanied by others, pre-nominal names; they are non-localized, without an explicable word - they are mere abstractions: "The perception image of sound,
«етуушшим-шишаи» 2022 / philological sciences
57
color is a contradiction in itself, because we see not one color, but a colored object... The names of some colors even now clearly indicate the sensual images from which they are isolated: as blue is the color of a dove, salt is the color of a nightingale..." (13, Potrebnya A.A., p.158)
Discussions. It is considered that even the ordinary interpretation of words is a reflection of the so-called naive picture of the world. This can be observed in the multidimensional interpretation of the word "crow":
a) from the point of view of etymology, it is an absolutely conditional sign; no one knows its true etymology; the inner form of the word has been erased.
b) everyone knows its metaphorical meaning when this word is used by a person: a gawker, a mouthful (hence the verb "to bury" - missed a profitable business; to count crows - to rot; the usual exclamation of football fans "Oh, you're a crow!" when the goalkeeper misses an easy ball);
c) from the point of view of classification characteristics, oppositions have developed in the language: crow /raven, in which the second member of the opposition means a genus, a family of omnivorous large birds with blue-black featherings, the first member of the opposition means a species of birds from this family "gray with black or entirely black";
d) the conceptual and phraseological cross-section that was formed on the basis of this word: the white crow (who is not like others, sharply differs from others); the black crow (during the years of repression - a closed van for transporting prisoners; in Russia today this designation lives in the jargon of "living on the other side of the ^")-(живущие по ту сторону закона).
e) etymological cross-section of phraseological units: in the case of "black crow", the generic concept of "crow" with the constitutive sign "color" is used - a closed, windowless van of black color, really resembling a crow at dusk; we believe that in the formation of this metaphorical designation, a special role was also played by a sign of misfortune, considered an attribute of the "croaking crow" - foreshadowing misfortune; the form "gray crow" in metaphorics and phraseology is not involved; in this system, the "white crow" modelis involved; the etymology of the "crow" metaphor (mouth, mouth) was formed on the basis of I. Krylov's fable "The Fox and the Crow", dating back to the work of the same name by Zh.La Fontaine.
f) pragmatic cross-section; this type of bird is not eaten, it is inedible, which is confirmed by the sayings "a hungry Frenchman is happy even for a crow; caught like a crow in soup.
g) associative-psychological section; crows - a class of birds that live for a long time, up to 300 years; the croaking of a crow portends misfortune, misfortune, due to which the ravens have become symbols - portents of misfortune (do not croak !; croaked to misfortune; croaked everyone; croaked on our head)
The noted aspects of the semantic, associative scope of the word "crow" in the Russian language in synthesis form the basis of the linguistic picture of the world in which the dominant component, the basic sign is the word "crow" in its "paradigmatic-phraseological"
expressions. In all the presented cases, the picture of the world displayed by the syntactic- derivato-logical potentials of a given word (except for the original meaning of "bird of the crow family") is realized on the basis of its internal forms, i.e. images correlating with one or another meaning of a given word: the higher the degree of conditionally of the verbal sign, the higher the degree of neutralization of the category of internal form during the "creation" of the world picture.
And, conversely, the more transparent the contours of the inner form, the brighter the connections of the deep image with the resulting linguistic picture of the world, both in its descriptive "execution" and in its symbolic and symbolic design. A.Potebni's words are noteworthy in this sense: "Every understanding of the word is in a certain sense a new consciousness, and every word, as an actual act of thought, is an accurate indicator of the degree of development of thought" (13, Potrebnya A.A., p.442).
This idea is confirmed by comparing the picture of the world, represented by the word "crow" in the Russian language, with the "charting" of the situations established in the folk's consciousness related to the concept "qarga" (crow) in Azerbaijani language.
a) from the point of view of etymology, "qarga" (crow) has not acquired the absolute status of a sign, since traces of onomatopoeic genesis are visible in it: qarga kimi qarildamaq: qar-qar qanldar (to croak like a crow).
b) there is no metaphorical meaning of "rotose, onlooker", apparently, due to the fact that the fable situation (world picture) associated with the inner form - the image of the deceived crow - rotose has not been developed in the Azerbaijani language, although this linguistic picture of the world has received its brilliant embodiment in our translated literature in the words of A. Sikhat "Olmasaydi cahanda sarsaqlar (maymaqlar), Yaqin ki, ac qalardi yaltaqlar". ("If there were not the Jahan jerks (idiots), probably there would be hungry flatterers".)
c) in the conceptual and phraseological sphere are not fixed, i.e. there are no special phraseomodels with combinations of ala qarga / qara qarga: they are involved only in the structure of proverbs and sayings (Qarga qazi taqlid etdi, qanltisini da itirdi; Burada ala qarga bala gixartmaz, qargadan qirgi olmaz, etc.) and then the same, as in Russian, only in a negative perception. In metaphorical meaning, the slang expression "funnel" is used, borrowed from Russian: "black raven" is a van for transporting prisoners: funnel is the result of the lexicalization of the combination "black raven", therefore, etymologically it has not even a distant connection with the Azerbaijani "qara qarga". This is one of the cases of borrowing the internal form of a foreign word with its reduced form.
d) the pragmatic purpose in both languages coincides. Here, apparently, the basics of subject-imaginative thinking have worked - the results of long-term observations that these birds feed on all kinds of sewage, their meat is not cooked, since these birds have been living for centuries, etc. However, in the national conception, the image of "crow" is imprinted negatively not only because it is not suitable for food. The negative
"aura" of this bird is also reflected in the fact that neither feathers (feather bed), nor meat, nor even blood goes to the "needs" of the people, even for the purposes of folk medicine;
e) therefore, these birds bear the stigma (associative psychological perception) of forerunners of misfortunes, troubles.
Thus, in the Russian and Azerbaijani language consciousness, the linguistic picture associated with the concept of crow has the following general parameters:
1. parametric feature - crow - wild bird;
2. external signs - dark black, hardy to cold, long-lived bird;
3. behavioral-internal characteristic - evoking evil, misfortune; croaking;
4. feeding system - vulture, feeds on carrion (5, Karaulov Y.N. , p.256-257);
The reasons for the negative attitude of a person - she is useless and unacceptable (an old hag is an evil, ugly old woman: this metaphorical designation is based on the use of the semantic structure of the common Turkic word "hag"(Kapra), cf.: Azerbaijan. kupagiran qari, qariyib qalmaq, qo§a qanyasiniz!, etc.).
The complex of the noted key features, identical in both languages, makes up the linguistic picture of the world relative to the concept of "crow" for both languages. As we saw above, the peripheral ay^eraybi that have found a place in the metaphor-phraseological systems of a particular language (white crow, black crow) should be considered basic, key only for one of the languages considered, structural elements of the linguistic world of one of them. Recently, there has been some broad interpretation of the category "linguistic picture of the world", within which some researchers are trying to present ways of dividing this picture by non-traditional ways of description. So, T.E. Naydina states nominative chains as informative-conceptualizing, since in them the setting "is not to create an aesthetic effect.., but to decipher the concept, to list the features of the classical, to convey information about the content of the concept: "Ivan Sergeevich bought a dacha: not very expensive, not very far away, a decent house, apple trees, raspberries, gooseberries ..." (8, Molotkov A.I., p.161).
Such texts are consonant with the modern stylistic features of the language of individual writers, i.e. idio-style. However, as it seems to us, nominative chains (... a decent house, apple trees, raspberries, gooseberries ... ) do not represent individual fragments of the picture of the world (it is represented in the whole statement as a whole), but actualize these details of the picture of the world. So, individual concepts included in a series ("nominative chain") do not make up a linguistic picture individually, even if they "accumulate the integral content of information" and "can serve as a verbal means of encoding in the memory of the experience accumulated by a person": words in the nominative series (...a house, an apple tree, a gooseberry ...) do not reach the concept in the strict sense of the word, since they are used in their denotational (spatio-temporal localization - at Ivan's dacha Sergeyevich) meaning. The concept category is more capacious than the concept category.
The linguistic picture of the world is a peculiar form of conceptualization of facts and phenomena of the world, "the division of the world and the consolidation of this division mainly by verbal means of natural language". In this case, the linguistic picture of the world (LPW) is understood by us as the linguistic code of the culture of a nation, people, as "a complex set of cultured ideas about the world picture of a given society (natural objects, artifacts, phenomena, actions, events, etc.)"; S.A.Kosharnaya asserts that LPW is a verbalization (linguization) of the picture of the inner world of a person, his mental nature, which "is a naive model of the universe common to representatives of a particular culture" (7, Korneyva A.Yu., p. 101). This applies to the entire system of forms and models of the LPW, starting from the elementary everyday vision of the world to the national folklore and mythological picture of the world, which (forms, models of the LPW) have specific nuclear and peripheral conceptual arsenals.
So, for example, the LPW with the central concept of "God" has its nuclear components in both languages we are considering: a) omnipotence, b) providence about the universe, c) righteousness, d) holiness (perfection), e) mercy, f) omniscience, g) unknowabil-ity, etc. (17, Chesnokov P.V., p.121). The mythologi-zation of God is one of the unconditional proofs that the LPW is not a reflection of the real or virtual worlds. This is the proof that the picture of the world is being created, produced in language. The "spirit of language" is not in the reflection of the world, but in its construction, in the display through the human brain. Otherwise, there could not have been mythological stories; there could not have been this genre of mythology, if language had been a means of capturing everything that exists in the world. Even if we assume that mythology is a special form, a kind of reflection, then we should admit that it is a special form of mental and linguistic processing and construction of the virtual world.
As can be seen from the examples given, absurd models of the world at the same time are also "pictures of the world", even if virtually mythological, representing a special type of thinking "from the opposite" (9, Muradova A.G., p. 86). This means that the construction represents the linguistic picture of the world both in its logically correct execution (when we say: yes, it happens) and in its illogical, absurd execution (when we say: it doesn't happen that way). Such a systemic opposition justifies itself due to the fact that meaningful compositions (utterances) in both cases have a figurative basis that makes up the internal form of these constructions. Consequently, the linguistic picture of the world should have its own constructive and defining support - the internal form: the presence of the latter is the main condition for the representation (representation) of the LPW, the absence of it deprives the utterance of the ability to be a sign of the LPW. Such artificial utterances in the language system perform momentary conditional functions and are devoid of the constitutive sign of a cognitively charged unit, i.e. its propositional nomination. For example, the well-known expression "Every hunter wants to know where the pheasant is sitting" is built according to the laws of
the syntax of the Russian language. But it lacks a conceptual basis (propositional nomination), although it looks like a normal unit of communication. However, it is not related to the communicative function (although it is possible to assume the possibility of this function in some other context, when it comes, for example, to the taste of pheasant meat or its aesthetic characteristics, which determine the desire of every hunter to know about the location of this beautiful bird): this construction of a complex sentence was invented, as is known, for lingvodidactic purposes - to memorize the sequence of colors (color designations) in the spectral system. The capital letters of the words in this "sentence" serve as hints of the color range in the spectrum - Everyone (k - red), hunter (o- orange), wishes (w -yellow), etc. By and large, we can say that since there is no name of the situation in this "sentence" (the nominative theory of the sentence is based on this factor), there is no expression of the relation of the content of the utterance to real or virtual reality (for example, in the aspect of affirmation/denial or goal setting), then there are no defining parameters of the main property of the sentence as a syntactic unit - its grammatical meaning, i.e. the category of predicativity. Hence the conclusion: this "statement" is nothing more than some conditional sign for memorizing some system of another, more complex sign.
The absolute conditionally of this "statement" is confirmed primarily by the fact is proved by the lacks of paradigmatic and syntagmatic possibilities that reveal the status of freely structured sentences at the level of their invariant essence. The same assessment and interpretation of the "propositional" nature deserves a "statement-model" from the Azerbaijani language, artificially invented for the same function to be a kind of identification mark for memorizing the sequence of spectral colors: Qari nana sari yagi mans gondar batman-batman = Qari (q-qirmizi), nana (n- narinci), sari (s-sari), yagi (y-ya§il), etc. There is no component of meaning in these artificial signs that would connect them with the semiotics of the national mentality, national culture, since these signals are remembered (if at all) only when it comes to the physical data of light, split into "seven colors".
The analysis of the noted experimental "proposi-tional" constructions convince us of the logic of our initial positions related to the definition of the category of LPW: LPW is inextricably linked with the internal form of the language unit. This is especially true of the stable word complexes. In them, the LPW have stable perceptibility and stable signification, structured as content, meaning. LPW, as a cognitive structure, is "representative" (in any case, it should reflect incoming information), it "is an important tool for extracting, analyzing and structuring knowledge about the world", therefore, "a person's perception of an event or situation turns out to be predetermined by the cognitive structures available in his consciousness, as a result of which a person operates not with facts, but with ideas about the surrounding world" (4, Illustrov I.I. p. 141).
One important fact should be noted here: the system of cognitively charged linguistic units (from a word
to a micro text) do not coincide in all in certain languages, are not equivalent in all, as, for example, in the case of the previous illustration of the spectral system. The spectral system is a universally global scientific fact. Apparently, in many languages it has its own verbal "memo" - decoding. However, LPW has its own ethno-cultural identity in all languages and it is problematic or even impossible to bring it under a single model of representation. Our fragmentary treatment of the materials of the Azerbaijani language due to just the fact that identification of ethno-cultural identity of LPW "in the material of one language there is no essential evidence base due to the fact that judgments of national-cultural specificity, retractable to vulgarisateur language picture of the world" (2, Aksakov K.S. p. 142).
Thus, in the Russian ethno-cultural paradigm (LPW), the concept of "nettle"(KpanHBo) occupies a special place in its biological, figurative-symbolic and onomasiological characteristics.
In modern dictionaries, the word "nettle" is usually accompanied by the following interpretation: - a herbaceous plant with burning hairs on the stem and leaves. "To be burned on nettles."(11, Norman B.N. 254 c., 303).
The Russian ethno-cultural tradition (LPW) gives this perennial grass a number of names. These names are largely the result of the special attitude of the Russian person to nettle, which is reflected in a clear system of differentiation of its varieties:
1. Simple Nettle (otherwise: stable fly, dragonfly, dragonfly);
2. Stinging nettle (fiery, stinging, fire-nettle);
3. Deaf nettle is a plant similar to nettle, but not burning.
4. Marsh nettle (mottle). The etymology of the word is associated with the Old Russian "KonpnBo", then received the form "KpanHBo" (15, Sidorkova G.D. 408). There is evidence that the name "KpanuBo" is associated with the word "nettle": when burning nettle, areas of the body are covered with purple relief nettle (blisters). The wide derivatological possibilities of the word "nettle", apparently, to a certain extent due to its "broad-meaning": wren, nettle, nettle soup, nettle seed etc. In the ethno-cultural space of the Russian language and the Russian LPW Russians should especially note the place of this concept, expressed in superstitions, omens and legends associated with the "nettle": "A lot of superstitions were associated with the Ivanovo night, as it was considered full of sorcery... Burning nettles were placed on the windows so that the evil spirit would not bring evil to either people or animals". According to legend, the color and freshness of nettle leaves can be used to judge the condition of a sick person (15, Sidorkova G.D. p. 408).
The cognitive structure of "nettle" finds its place in a number of proverbs: If it wasn't cold on the nettle, then there would be no frets with it; the evil seed of nettle - you can't make beer from it; you can't get around with it that you sit in the nettle; the settlement is good, but the nettle is overgrown; this is a nettle potion! Consequently, the picture of the world verbalized in the concept of "nettle" will be complete if its structuring is subordinated to the possibilities of reflecting reality
that have developed in different historical periods of language development in society (12, Pimenova M.V. p. 54). This is more than obvious that when it comes to the possibilities of "dividing the world", which "is carried out not by language, but by cognitive classifiers belonging to a common, cognitive picture of the world. Language does not divide reality at all, it reflects, fixes the cognitive division of the world with the assistance of cognitive consciousness" (12, Pimenova M.V. p. 56)
Conclusions. Therefore, the so-called nominative field of the concept "nettle" must include the entire body of linguistic resources, which "provide his description of the process of linguistic and cognitive studies" (12, Pimenova M.V. p. 69):
- direct nomination of the concept (nettle as a biological concept, its encyclopedic description)
- figuratively derivatives nomination (he's not a nettle, but burns)
-derivatives related to the main lexical means ver-baliza-tion of the concept (urticaria, nettle, nettle seed, etc.)
-individual (occasional), idiostylistic nomination (urticaria matured - N.Leskov)
- stable-steady, reproducible combinations, including the concept as a reference words (nettle seed, nettle potion, deaf nettle; nettle fever is an allergic disease, rash, itching)
-a paremiological series, including the concept "nettle" as a reference word (If it wasn't frost on the nettle, it would have outgrown through the thousand
- metaphorically figurative designation (stinging nettle for those who it will affect, it is not necessary to touch (someone) to be expected: in the sense of "birch - not a threat: where there is, there is noise")
- sustainable comparison of a given concept (stinging nettle - about counterfeit vodka)
- free collocation constructions (stinging nettle; fresh nettles, dried frost nettle, etc.).
Language picture created by means of the concept "nettle" will be incomplete, if one of the main components of this picture, related to the historico-ethnocul-turological use of the word in phraseological combination "nettle" is not researched.
So it seems to us that what has been said is sufficient for a complete understanding of the LPW, for il-lustrateing the unity of the parameters that determine its structure, its unconditional connection with the category of internal form and, especially, with the category of the concept. Therefore, we stand in solidarity with the authors of Cognitive Linguistics in defining the linguistic picture of the world - "this is a set of people's ideas about reality fixed in language units at a certain stage of the development of the people, the idea of reality reflected in the meanings of language units - the linguistic division of the world.., information about the world embedded in the system meanings ofwords" (12, Pimenova M.V. p. 54)
References
1. Khakimov M. I. Idioms and knots of our people. Baku: Maarif, 1986, p.392, 182)
2. Aksakov K.S. The experience of Russian grammar. PSS. 3 vol. 1861, pp. II-III., 142).
3. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Excursions to Russian grammar. M., 1883, 182 p.
4. Illustrov I.I. The life of the Russian people in its proverbs and sayings. Ed. 3rd, M., 1915, 480 p., 141).
5. Karaulov Y.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M.: Nauka, 1987, 262 p., 256-257);
6. Koltsova L.M., Churikov S.A. Destructive processes in the semantics of Keywords of Russian culture // Reports of the XIII Congress of MAPRYAL "Russian language and literature in the space of world culture", vol.3, e.g. 2. Granada (Spain), 2015, pp.91-96.
7. Korneyva A.Yu. Consciousness as a category of cognitive linguistics // Materials of the XIII Congress of the MAPRYAL "Russian language and literature in the space of world culture", vol. 6, e.g. 5. Granada (Spain), 2015, p.293-297.,101).
8. Molotkov A.I. Fundamentals of phraseology of the Russian language. L., 1977, 281 p., 161).
9. Muradova A.G. The concept of "precious stones" and its verbalization in the East Slavic languages. Autoref. diss... D.F. by phil.sciences, 2017, 19 p. , 86)
10. Nikolaeva T.M. Models of the world in the grammar of paremias // Philological collection (to the 100th anniversary of Academician V.V.Vinogradov). Moscow: Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995, pp. 316-326.
11. Norman B.N. Cognitive syntax of the Russian language. Moscow: Flint-Nauka, 2013, 254 p., 303).
12. Pimenova M.V. Soul and spirit: features of conceptualization. Kemerovo: Publishing House of. Kem.GU, 2004, 385 p., 54.
13. Potrebnya A.A. From notes on the theory of literature // Potebnya A.A. Aesthetics and Poetics. M.: Iskusstvo, 1976, pp.286-559.,158)
14. Russian philosophers about language. A textbook. M.Yaroslavl, 2010, 654 p., 167-168).
15. Sidorkova G.D. Pragmatics of paremia: proverbs and sayings as speech actions. Krasnodar: KSU Publishing House, 1999, 250 p., 408).
16. Tarlanov Z.K. Russian proverbs: syntax and poetics. Petrozavodsk: PzGU, 1999, 448 p.
17. Chesnokov P.V. On the correspondence of formal types of linguistic and logical constructions // Language and thinking. M., 1967, pp.88-101., 121)
18. Wittgenstein L. Logical and philosophical treatise. M.: Inostr. literature, 1957, 142 p.
19. Zvegintsev V.A. Language and linguistic theory. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1973, 380 p.
