Issina G. I., Sushkov S.O.

Karaganda State University, Kazakhstan

ASPECTS OF LINGUISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN TERMS OF

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION.

Nowadays one of the most complicated and controversial aspects in linguistics and culturology is the study of linguistic consciousness and its ethnic and cultural dependence in socialization. Complexity of the problem is characterized by dimensionality, colossal chronological length, formal, structural and functional diversity of the thing that belongs to linguistic consciousness and intercultural communication.

Intercultural communication is the kind of connection and communication between people of different cultures, which involves both personal contact and mediated forms of communication (such as writing and mass communication). Intercultural communication takes an important place in our modern society, as it facilitates the exchange of experience in various fields of science, economy and trade. It completes our knowledge about the diversity of surrounding world. But in order to make this communication more productive, you need not only knowledge, but also understanding of national-cultural interaction processes and consideration of world conceptualizing, reflected in the verbal forms of language consciousness. The study of various extra- and psycholinguistic processes, which influence linguistic consciousness formation, formulates theoretical and applied significance of the given analysis.

Despite the obvious language and culture relations, the issue is not so simple and does not have the clear-cut solution. All attempts and standpoints in modern linguistic and cultural studies can be traced to two hypotheses, which lie in recognition and rejection between language and culture relations.

Concepts associated with the hypothesis of language and culture independence are rare and sometimes even contradictory in linguistics and philosophy. Some researchers believe that language and culture differ in nature and functions. We consider the culture as human achievement, but do not the language. Researchers uphold the view based on the postulate that language is an inherent system controlled solely by its own rules, independently of social, cultural and other conditions in which the system operates: "Language is a system that is subject only to its own order" [1].

Anyway, today most researchers adhere to the hypothesis about the language and culture relations in philosophy and linguistics. Language is an integral part of the culture, its main tool of assimilation, the reality of our spirit. Language is the mechanism that opened the area of consciousness for people. On the other hand, culture is included in the language, since all of it modeled in the text.

One of the first attempts to solve and justify this connection was the writings of Wilhelm von Humboldt. He explained the national character idea of the culture, which is reflected in the language through a special view of the world. Language and culture, being relatively independent phenomena are linked through the value of linguistic signs, which provide the ontological unity of language and culture.

Many foreign and local scientists investigated problems of intercultural communication and language and culture interaction. They are: E. Sapir, B. Whorf, Wilhelm von Humboldt, A. Potebnia, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay and many others.

G. Guillaume in "Principles of Theoretical Linguistics" sets out that in the study of national mental-lingual complex it is necessary to consider the concept "linguistic consciousness" as "language materializes the mental condition" [2].

According to V. Karasik, language is the social phenomenon and the social fact is that it collectively and individually exists in the linguistic consciousness. The carrier of linguistic consciousness is linguistic identity, i.e. a person that exists in language space – discourse, patterns of fixed in the language behavior, semantics of language units and texts. Availability of language consciousness is one of the distinctive features of an individual. Personality is formed in the society in socialization process. Consequently, the mind cannot bear the distinctive features of the society where personality forms; it always bears the national press [3].

Linguistic consciousness is inseparable from human consciousness; these concepts cannot be separated, as they are interrelated and interdependent. A.A. Leontyev in his work defined the mind as a reflection of reality, refracted through the prism of linguistic meanings and concepts. The man bringing up in a society assigns features of native culture, set of opinions and attitudes inherent in the society. As the basis for understanding the world and the world view of each nation is its own system of substantive values, social stereotypes, cognitive schemes, etc., the human mind is always ethnically determined. Ethnic and sociocultural factor influences the forming methods and formulating thoughts [4].

In the study of linguistic consciousness scholars consider the terms "world view" and "image of the world". These concepts are very similar in content and value, but there is the difference. World view is a category of psycholinguistics, image of the world is a category of linguistics. The person receiving the information about the world (by means of the senses) forms in the mind (consciously or not) the image of the world, which in verbalism is world view. All language and culture differences are identified by their juxtaposition.

Y.D. Apresyan expresses the idea that "every natural language reflects a certain way of conceptualizing (perception and organization) of the world. The expressed in language values form a single system of view, as a kind of collective philosophy that has obligatory imposed to all holders of language" [5]. The world view is always characterized by cultural identity, established against the universal unity of world perception due to historical, geographical and ethno-psychological peculiarities of the people.

Image of the world is also respectively shaped by the national linguocultural environment. The formal resemblance of linguistic consciousness structure can be very different images of the world. For example, when an American (or Englishman), introducing his friend, whom he met recently, says: «He is a friend of mine» [6]. The word «friend» for Russian has a slightly different meaning. We call people «friend» who are very close and dear to us. In English language there are words «fellow» and «acquaintance», which are more appropriate in that situation. It is not about national American or national English character; it is about linguistic and cognitive phenomena in the minds for each of these words for Americans, Englishmen or Russians [7].

In general, in our opinion, assigned culture similarities, i.e. cultural objects similarities define common consciousness of communicants, which primarily allows symbolic communication. Culture is directly linked with consciousness, complex of socially transmitted knowledge and attitudes and behavior stereotypes that are reflected in verbal forms.

References:

1. Saussure F. Course in General Linguistics. – V.N.: F. de Saussure Linguistics work. - M., 1977. – 432p.

2. Guillaume G. Principles of Theoretical Linguistics. - M., 1992. – 224p.

3. Karasik V.I. Linguistic Circle: personality, concepts, discourse. - Volgograd: Peremena, 2002. – 477p.

4. Leontiev A.A. Languistic consciousness and the image of the world / / Language and consciousness: paradoxical rationality. - M., 1993. – 174p.

5. Apresyan Y.D. The image of man according to the language: the attempt of system description / / Problems of Linguistics. 1995, № 1. P. 37-67.

6. Krasnih V.V. "Us" among "them": Myth or Reality. - Moscow: ITDGK "Gnosis", 2003. – 375p.

7. Tarasov E.F. Introduction / / Language and consciousness: paradoxical rationality. - M., 1993. – 174p.