Recently, a large number of works devoted to linguoculturological problems have appeared in modern linguistics. Linguoculturology is a complex field of scientific knowledge on the interconnection and interaction of language and culture that arose on the basis of the research works of the phraseological school of V. N. Telia, the publications of V. V. Vorobev, V. G. Kostomarov, V. A. Maslova, the works of other linguists [Kourovo, 2005, p. 27]. Linguoculturology is closely connected with such disciplines as linguistics, ethnolinguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitivistics.
As a relatively new science, linguoculturology is characterized by a number of contradictions. So, for example, in the framework of linguoculturology, according to V. N. Telia, language phenomena in synchrony should be considered. However, at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries it is necessary to study the language and using not only the synchronous but also the diachronic method, as well as from the positions of the timeliness, since at the present time the «synchronous/ diachronic» option is replaced by the idea of panchrony " [Bragina, 1999, p. 132]. The emergence of linguoculturology is a natural result of the development of the philosophical and linguistic theory of the XIX-XX century. In the last decade, several works devoted to this discipline were published. The most popular in science work can be considered a textbook by V. A. Maslova [Maslova, 2001]. It provides a methodological basis, describes the current trends of linguocultural researchs. The author emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of linguoculturology, defining it as «a branch of linguistics that emerged at the junction of linguistics and cultural studies» as «a humanitarian discipline that studies the material and spiritual culture embodied in a living national language and manifested in linguistic processes» or as an «integrative field of knowledge that absorbs the results of research in cultural science and linguistics, ethnolinguistics and cultural anthropology " [p. 9, 30, 32]. The goal of linguoculturology, in the opinion of V. A. Maslova [p. 35), (the study of the ways in which the language embodies in its units, preserves and translates the culture), the tasks (to identify how culture participates in the formation of linguistic concepts, or whether the cultural and linguistic competence of native speakers exists in reality), as well as the conceptual apparatus are formulated very widely. The author affirms the possibility of using a wide variety of techniques and methods of research «from interpretative to psycholinguistic». The most complete in modern domestic linguistics the theoretical and methodological foundations of linguoculturology are set forth in Vorobev's work Linguoculturology: Theory and Methods [Vorobyev, 1997]. The study was carried out in the traditions of Humboldtianism: the study of a culture embodied in the language is proposed to be carried out on the basis of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the terminology introduced by L. Weisgerber (Luchinina, 2004, p. 240]. Linguoculturology is considered as the theoretical basis of linguistic culture; It is defined as «a complex scientific discipline of the synthesizing type that studies the interrelation and interaction of culture and language in its functioning and reflects this process as an integral structure of units in the unity of their linguistic and extralinguistic (cultural) content through systemic methods and with an orientation to modern priorities and cultural Establishment (a system of norms and universal values) " [Vorobyev, 1997, p. 36–37]. The main object of linguoculturology, the author calls «the interaction and interaction of culture and language in the process of its functioning and the study of the interpretation of this interaction in a single systemic integrity», and the subject of this discipline are «the national forms of society, reproduced in the system of language communication and based on its cultural values», — everything that makes up the «linguistic picture of the world». Vorobyov introduces the main unit of linguocultural analysis — lingvoculture, defining it as a «dialectical unity of linguistic and extralinguistic (conceptual and objective) content». V. Krasnikov also solves similar problems: in the work «Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguoculturology» he defines the latter as «a discipline studying the manifestation, reflection and fixation of culture in language and discourse, directly related to the study of the national picture of the world, linguistic consciousness, features mentally -lingval complex " [Krasnykh, 2002, p. 12]. In the opinion of V. V. Krasnykh, the subject of linguoculturology is a unit of language and discourse possessing a culturally significant content, which is the «channel» by which we can enter the cultural and historical layer of the mentally-lingual complex. Linguoculturology is designed to identify, with the help and on the basis of linguistic data, the basic oppositions of culture fixed in the language and manifested in discourse; Reflected in the mirror of the language and in it are fixed ideas about cultured areas: spatial, temporal, activity, etc.; The ancient representations, which correspond to cultural archetypes, emerging through the prism of the tongue. The problems of linguoculturology are also developed by scientists of the Volgograd school, in particular, V. I. Karasik and E. I. Sheigal. V. I. Karasik regards linguoculturology as a «complex field of scientific knowledge about the interconnection and interplay of language and culture» and emphasizes its comparative character [Karasik, 2002, p. 103, 108, 121]. The main unit of linguoculturology, he calls the cultural concept, and as units of study, the realities and «background values, that is, Content characteristics of specific and abstract names that require for an adequate understanding of additional information about the culture of this people ". Karasik V. I. calls a number of reasons why linguoculturology is in its heyday: the rapid globalization of world problems, the need to take into account the universal and specific characteristics of the behavior and communication of various peoples in solving a wide variety of issues, the need to know in advance those situations in which the probability of intercultural misunderstanding is high, the importance of defining and accurately denoting those cultural values that lie in the basis of communicative activity; an objective integrative trend in the development of the humanities, the need for linguists to master the results obtained by representatives of related branches of knowledge. The applied side of linguistic knowledge, understanding of language as a means of concentrated reflection on collective experience. In the work of E. I. Sheigal and V. A. Buryakovskaya, linguoculturology is defined as a discipline that studies «individual objects of the conceptual picture of the world and their comprehension by the public consciousness and language from the point of view of the object of reflection, one of which is the ethnos» [Sheigal, Buryakovskaya, 2002]. The authors study the linguocultural potential of ethnonyms that are part of stable combinations, as well as the specifics of the functioning of ethnonyms in the texts of articles, stories and anecdotes. In 2004, A. Khrolenko's textbook «Foundations of Linguistic Culturology» was published, in which he defines the goal of science — the generalization of all information accumulated by ethnolinguistics and the disciplines entering into it, revealing the mechanisms of interaction between language and culture. Linguistic culture is the philosophy of language and culture. The object of the study is language and culture; The subject is the fundamental issues related to the transforming side of the connection between language and culture: changes in the language and its units, conditioned by the dynamics of culture, as well as changes in the structure and changes in the functioning of culture, predetermined by the language realization of cultural meanings [Khrolenko, 2004, p. 31]. The set of sciences that study the problems of interaction between language and culture, each in its aspect, can be called generically, for example, as suggested by A. T. Khrolenko, linguistic and cultural studies, since each of them aims to identify and preserve linguistic cultural values. In the opinion of A. Khrolenko (P. 31–32], linguoculturology should be interested in revealing the mechanisms of interaction, mutual influence of two fundamental phenomena — language and culture, which determine the phenomenon of man. Khrolenko AT believes that linguoculturology within linguistic and cultural studies corresponds to the status of general linguistics in the system of language sciences. Like general linguistics, linguoculturology is called upon to identify and describe the most general patterns of interdependence, the interaction of linguistic and cultural practices of man and society. This analogy helps to understand that linguoculturology, as well as general linguistics, is possible only in the system of other, more specific in terms of subject and other methods of research of scientific disciplines. In the opinion of O. I. Kourova [Kourovova, 2005, p. 53], linguoculturology is a section of linguistics that studies the interaction of language and culture in the form of systems that embody and represent linguistic cultural values. The task of the new discipline is the explication of the cultural significance of linguistic units by correlating their symbolic reading with the known «codes» of culture. The basic concepts for linguoculturology are: linguocultural paradigm, cultural connotation, linguistic picture of the world, concept and others. Thus, the theoretical and methodological basis of this discipline for the present the moment is in its infancy. Among scientists, there is no consensus on the status of linguoculturology (an independent discipline or branch of linguistics), nor about the subject and methods of linguocultural research. It is generally accepted to define linguoculturological research as the study of language in indissoluble connection with culture. The most popular material illustrating the characteristics of the worldview of native speakers are phraseological units and paremia. There are also studies aimed at revealing the linguocultural specifics of individual concepts; Similar works are based, as a rule, on the texts of classical literature.
References:
- Bragina N. G., Fragment of the linguocultural lexicon (basic concepts) // Phraseology in the context of culture. Moscow, 1999.
- Vorobiev, V.V., Lingvokulturologiya: Theory and Methods. Moscow: RUDN, 1997. 331 p.
- Karasik V. I., Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd, 2002.
- Kourova O. I., Traditional-poetic vocabulary and phraseology as a linguistic and cultural value: monograph. Ekaterinburg: the Urals. State. Ped. Univ., 2005. 235 p.
- Krasnykh V. V., Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguoculturology: a course of lectures. Moscow: ITDGK «Gnosis», 2002. 284 p.
- Luchinina, E. N. Lingvokulturologiya in the system of humanitarian knowledge // Criticism and semiotics. 2004. Issue.
- Maslova V. A. Linguoculturology. Moscow: Academy, 2001. 208 p.
- Telia V. N. Priorities and Methodological Problems of the Study of the Phraseological Composition of Language in the Context of Culture // Phraseology in the Context of Culture. M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999.
- Khrolenko, A.T., Fundamentals of linguoculturology: a textbook. Moscow: Flint, 2004. 184 p.
- Sheigal E.I, Buryakovskaya V. A. Linguoculturology: language representation of an ethnos. Volgograd, 2002.
