Linguistic consciousness. The concept of linguistic consciousness. National linguistic consciousness. Study problems

Speech, consciousness, communication. Speech functions

Usually in psychology textbooks, speech is considered in the context of thinking. Indeed, "every word generalizes", since the core of the meaning of the word is the concept, and the concept is the form of the existence of thought. Articulate speech is a specifically human way of forming, formulating and transmitting thoughts using the means of language. Historically, speech also arose along with thinking in the process of social and labor activity, practice (although, as will be shown below, thinking and speech have genetic roots, in phylogenesis and ontogenesis they first perform different functions and were autonomous in their development until a certain point). But speech still goes beyond the limits of correlation with thinking. In the meaning of the word, in addition to the concept, there are emotional and volitional components that generally play a significant role at all levels of the language system. Thus, speech correlates with consciousness in general.

Speech has one primary and main function, its purpose is to serve as a means of communication. The function of communication (or, as it is often called, communicative) includes (as the faces with which it turns to us in different cases or in different aspects consideration) functions of communication, exchange of thoughts for the purpose of mutual understanding, expressive (expressive) and impactful (incentive). “Speech in the true sense of the word is a means of conscious influence and communication, carried out on the basis of the semantic content of speech; this is the specificity of speech in the true sense of the word, human speech.

Many linguists and psychologists speak of two main functions of speech - as a means of communication and as a form of existence of thought, consciousness. But then they are forced to admit that these two functions "are formed one through the other and function one in the other"

Terminological triad: language, speech, speech activity

Until now, we have used the words "language" and "speech" not in a terminological sense, but in their everyday understanding, at the level of everyday consciousness. The time has come to strictly distinguish between these concepts, as has long been accepted in linguistics and psycholinguistics. We will proceed from the fact that there are observed and represented objects. We can talk about the real existence of the latter when, in one way or another, they are part of the objects that we directly observe. Let's use an example from geometry for clarity. A point in geometry is a representable object, we represent it as a perfect circle in infinite reduction. However, we see, we observe lines, each of which consists of many points, which proves the objective existence of a point, albeit indirectly. Let's remember this example.

As native speakers, we can directly observe and deal with such an object as text. Texts can be written or oral, prepared and thought out or spontaneously created, their size is not limited (in this broad sense, any individual statement can be a text). Let's call the text speech. In such a narrow terminological meaning, “speech” cannot denote a process, activity, ability to this activity (cf. “Animals do not have speech”), it only denotes finished result efforts to create texts (speaking, writing, printing, etc.), deployed in time (oral speech) or in space (written speech). So, "speech" = "text". When communicating in any language, texts are exchanged.

The acts of creating texts (acts of speaking, writing) and the acts of perceiving texts (acts of adequate understanding) are called speech actions. The system of speech actions is speech activity.

Text-speech is a product of the act of generating speech and objects, which is directed by the act of perception, understanding. Consequently, speech (text) serves the purposes of communication. But how is communication possible? Obviously, when any text is equally understandable for the speaker and the listener, ideally for all native speakers of a given language. This, in turn, suggests that the text should consist of certain universally valid elements (units) that function in the same way. general rules(grammar rules). If we extract these common elements and we derive uniform rules by studying a sufficiently large number of various texts, then we get a language as a system of elements interconnected by certain formal-content relations, a language as a system of patterns that any text (real or potential) is built on. The language system we have singled out (“language” in the terminological sense) ensures mutual understanding in the “exchange of texts” between its speakers.

The elements of a "language system" are described in explanatory dictionaries, and the rules for constructing texts from them are given in the grammars of this "language".

Thus, we are dealing with a triad: language (language system), speech (text), speech activity. The language in this triad acts as a represented object, resulting from the abstraction and generalization of the real properties of texts as observable objects. Recall the example with a geometric point. A language system, like a dot, is a representable object, but any text (which we see or hear) contains units of this language system and is composed according to its rules.

Here an important question arises: does this mean that the linguistic system of a given language does not have an independent, separate existence, that only texts really exist, and that the system itself is a represented object constructed by a linguistic researcher?

The answer depends on the approach we choose. When choosing a narrowly linguistic approach, the answer will be positive; at the same time, the language system acts as a purely abstract object that does not have a separate existence, just as, for example, the laws of musical harmony do not have a separate existence.

The situation, however, changes if we choose a psycholinguistic approach. In this case, it is impossible to deny that each individual has some internal system, which allows him to build and perceive texts in a given language. It is natural to consider such a system as a language system in the psycholinguistic sense, and its independent existence is unconditional.

But even in this case, there cannot be a “language system in general” as a separate object: there are language systems of individual native speakers (individual), and the isolation and isolation in them of the general, socially conditioned, in the form of a separate system, gives us an abstract object, an object theory, which we study in grammars and dictionaries.

In addition to the two approaches mentioned - linguistic and psycholinguistic, for psychology, the neurolinguistic approach is of great interest, which includes in consideration the material substrate of the psycholinguistic "language system": those neurological mechanisms (primarily brain mechanisms) that make speech activity possible, acts of speaking and understanding.

Speech is a specifically human way of forming and formulating thoughts with the help of linguistic means. The complexity of mastering speech lies in the most complete and perfect mastery of the signs of the linguistic structure.

Language is a system of verbal signs, relatively independent of the individual, serving for the purposes of communication, the formation and formulation of thoughts, the consolidation and transmission of socio-historical experience. A language is a certain maximum possible system of signs, of which each user of this system uses for himself, by virtue of his capabilities, a specific share.

Language is a multi-level system with its own requirements and limitations at all levels - from phonetic and graphic to grammatical and semantic. All these requirements and restrictions constitute norms, rules for the use of verbal signs, which are taught to sign-users (informants) both in vivo- with the help of parents, in the family, and in special learning environment- at school, in courses, according to reference books, dictionaries.

The complexity of the transition from general language norms to their specific use has led to the fact that speech processes reach their maximum possible peaks very late. According to B.G. Ananiev Ananiev b. D. Human psychology. Favorites. -SPb., 1998. -p.119, the best speech results are recorded at the age of 35-40 years. Prior to this, speech skills develop and improve, passing through certain periods of mastering functions and forms. Compare, for example, the speech of a preschooler and elementary school student, the speech of a teenager and the speech of an adult with enough high level education. Comparison can go along the lines of the correct use of verbal signs, their diversity, expressiveness, accuracy, logical correlation, relevance in different situations, understanding even destroyed texts, as well as understanding subtext, ease of construction from separate verbal elements various designs etc.

Language as a system, as a norm that regulates people's behavior, and speech as a specific process of using linguistic signs in their joint manifestation reflect the features of the reflection of the objective world by a given ethnic community. Indeed, the grid of linguistic coordinates by which objects are named real world can take a variety of, sometimes contradictory, forms. For example, the abundance of cases in the languages ​​of the Finno-Ugric group (up to 16 cases) makes one think about the advantages of certain language systems and, even more broadly, about the connection of systems of linguistic consciousness in general.

In the 30s of the XX century. American ethnographers B. Whorf and E. Sapir put forward a theory about the direct connection of languages ​​with the thinking and way of life of entire peoples. Based on the rich factual material obtained as a result of observations of the language, speech and behavior of the Indians of North America, it was concluded that languages ​​form an idea of ​​the world, an image of the world and an image of adequate actions. If, suppose, the language of the Navajo Indian tribe has a lot of verbs and verb formations and very few nouns denoting specific objects, this tribe can be classified as very mobile, wandering, changing stable conditions. This is indeed the case, and numerous linguistic proofs enabled the authors to create a theory of linguistic relativity, which is still widely discussed at ongoing scientific meetings.

Of course, language categories - temporary, case, generic, mortgage, imposed on the child in his speech development adults, determine his sensory perception of the world, make him choose appropriate forms of behavior. But life itself, ever-increasing contacts with speakers of other language structures, non-verbal ways of reflecting reality significantly affect language structures, especially mobile lexical ones.

The search for a common language for humanity with unified system essential features continue to this day. Each country has its own informal associations of supporters of the Esperanto language, which, according to its creator L. Zamenhof, should serve to communicate and understand peoples. Comparison of phrases in the Esperanto language with their Russian translation shows that the basis of Esperanto is the dead Latin language with very significant Romano-Germanic overtones. For example: Homo eso socialus zoa - Man is a social being; Kvi volo edere eus debeto laborere - He who wants to eat must work.

A.N. Leontiev showed in the book: Leontiev D.A. Essays on the psychology of personality. -M., 1997. -p.229 that human consciousness is inextricably linked with activity and is, as it were, a reflection of reality refracted through the prism of linguistic meanings. The criteria for choosing linguistic meanings can be very diverse: brevity or completeness, importance or complementarity, own point of view or universality, frequency or singularity. How can one give the same definition of the word "air" for chemistry, physics, painting, meteorology, medicine? It's like requiring only one map to describe the area. Numerous clinical speech pathologies, different levels of mastery of the language system, situational options up to altered states of consciousness, for example, delusional, hallucinatory, convincingly prove the reality of multiple criteria. But they also prove the reality of some universal characteristics that make possible the very process of human interaction and its final effect - understanding. Universal, universal signs of a linguistic sign can be distinguished only by systematically comparing them in different languages and fixing the results in semantic types (from the Greek Semantikos - denoting) or semantic factors, i.e. elementary semantic units used to describe the meaning of words. Semantic types are nothing more than a set of the most important, private and essential features that distinguish, differentiate objects and phenomena of the real world. Gradually, as you learn more subtle and diverse features, including your own subjective preferences, a deeper and more diverse reflection of reality occurs. Compare: Pushkin is a great Russian poet. But he is a poet, killed in a duel by Dantes. He is also a graduate of the famous Royal Lyceum. He is also a friend of Pushchin and Delvig, he is also the father of four children and the husband of the first beauty of St. Petersburg. The diversity and hierarchy of signs of a semantic nature make up those zones of meaning of signs that the classic of Russian psychology L.S. Vygotsky called the combined two mental processes: thinking and speech. Each informant - the user of this system of verbal signs chooses those signs that are important for him in specific situation. Information completeness, satisfaction with interaction, understanding are possible only when the necessary signs are found. So, only a close adult can understand the very distorted signs chosen by the child, but other participants in communication will no longer be able to do this. We need a translation into a commonly understood system of signs, i.e. a system of signs of these signs, at least the most elementary ones. We all find ourselves in a situation where we are trying to exchange information with speakers of other language systems. Most often, we call on the help of a rich sphere of non-verbal interaction, non-verbal signs: we draw, gesticulate, use a variety of facial expressions, act out scenes. Sometimes it helps if the situation is simple enough and involves some kind of choice. But in difficult situations it is very easy to take wishful thinking. History has preserved in memory the tragic episode from the war of the Persian king Darius with the ancient Scythians, when, on the outskirts of the enemies, Darius received a message from them, on which a mouse, a frog and 7 arrows were drawn. After a moment's thought, Darius solemnly announced victory to his army without a fight. He read a message in his favor like "The Scythians give us their land (mouse) and their water (frog) and lay down their weapons (quiver with arrows) in front of us." The Persians celebrated their victory noisily and were defeated the same night. It turns out that the text of the message should have been understood as a warning: "Persians, if you are not able to bury yourself in the ground like mice or like frogs put on frog skin and gallop into the swamp, you will be hit by our arrows."

L.S. Vygotsky constantly emphasized in the book: Rean A. A., Rozum S. I., Bordovskaya N. V. Pedagogy and psychology. -SPb., 2000. -p.72 the connection of language (speech) processes with thinking in the general zones of the meaning of linguistic signs, as well as the constant development and improvement of these zones from a child to an adult, from a professional to a non-professional, from a monolingual speaking the same language , to a multilinguist, freely switching from one sign system to another.

Being the direct embodiment of thinking, language contains all the cognitive wealth of a person in an individual and social aspect and fixes in a material form his individual and public consciousness. With this approach, the language can be understood as a system in which the perception of the world is encoded, as the culture of a given people.

Since the concept is a mental unit and a representative of objective reality, often having linguistic objectification, it correlates with the concept of linguistic consciousness. The term " linguistic consciousness»was first introduced by W. von Humboldt. Under it, the scientist meant the ability of consciousness to reflect during speech formation over the adequacy of the transformation of thoughts into words; the ability of the reflection of the linguistic community over the ways of shaping non-linguistic material in the language.

The question of the appropriateness of using and the status of the term "linguistic consciousness" in modern linguistic research is debatable and is unequivocally positively resolved in the context of the cognitive-semiological theory of the word.

Following I.A. Sternin, we adhere to the point of view according to which consciousness is the highest form of mental activity and the result of cognition of objective reality in the form of knowledge about the world obtained in the process of cognition ( cognitive activity) . In cognitive linguistics, within its integrated approach to the nature of consciousness, the term "consciousness" itself can be correlated with the synonymous concept of "cognitive consciousness". I.A. Sternin argues that the concepts of "consciousness" ("cognitive consciousness") and "linguistic consciousness" should not be considered as identical.

E.F. Tarasov defines linguistic consciousness as “a set of images of consciousness formed and externalized with the help of linguistic means. - words, free and stable phrases, sentences, texts and associative fields. I.A. Sternin enters into controversy with this point of view, arguing that consciousness does not need to be verbalized, since the mechanism of its functioning is a universal subject code. As a result, cognitive consciousness is subjected to “externalization”, but it cannot be argued that it acquires a certain “linguistic” status. As a result, I.A. Sternin, following A.A. Leontiev, points to the failure of the expression "linguistic consciousness" in the context of linking consciousness to the fact of its externalization through language.

I.A. Sternin offers his concept linguistic consciousness How sets of mental (mental) mechanisms that ensure the process of human speech activity; knowledge used by communicants in the production, perception and storage of speech messages .

A.L. Sharandin notes that linguistic consciousness is determined by the comprehension of language as a specific object of reality, and not only by the recognition of its function as a means of reflecting it. In this regard, we can talk about the existence of linguistic concepts represented by certain forms thinking and influencing the focus of consideration of reality. From here distinctive feature human thinking is the ability to recode the concepts of the universal subject code into language concepts. Linguistic consciousness, as the scientist notes, also determines such a component of the process of conceptualization of reality as the verbalization of concepts through the word - linguistic sign [Ibid.]. Thus, the linguistic consciousness provides the translation of the concept in its semiotic codification by means of the word and considers the language as a separate object of cognition.

As the only objective method for studying linguistic consciousness, I.A. Sternin proposes an associative experiment, with the help of which it is possible to reconstruct the connection of language units in the mind and reveal the nature of their interaction in the processes of its functioning (understanding, storage, etc.). Hence the linguistic consciousness - it is a part of consciousness (cognitive consciousness) that provides the mechanisms of language (speech) activity; a component of cognitive consciousness responsible for the mechanisms of human speech activity and ensuring the operation of speech.

Based on the fact that speech activity is a component communication activities, I.A. Sternin distinguishes between the concepts of "linguistic consciousness" and "communicative consciousness", meaning by the latter the totality of communicative knowledge and communicative mechanisms that provide the whole complex of human communicative activity (communicative attitudes of consciousness, mental categories, norms and rules of communication). The scientist notes that communicative consciousness is nationally specific and culturally marked.

In the context of theories about the ethnocentrism of consciousness, it becomes obvious that linguistic consciousness is ethnically determined as a result of the mutual influence of language and ethnoculture, the interdependence of language and thinking. So, I.V. Privalova in the study of ethno-cultural marking of linguistic consciousness postulates: "Ethno-linguistic consciousness is an ensemble of cognitive-emotive and axeological structures, the national marking of which ensures their variability from one culture to another" . According to the scientist, the image (model) of ethno-linguistic consciousness is constituted by functional units three specially structured types of space: linguistic, cognitive and cultural [Ibid.]. Accordingly, ethno-linguistic consciousness is linguistic consciousness in the ethnic aspect; a model of the linguistic consciousness of the carriers of a certain ethnic culture, the translator of which is the language. Ethno-linguistic consciousness exists and functions in the context of national linguistic consciousness. In this paper, we consider the linguistic consciousness of the Pomors as an ethno-linguistic (Pomor sub-ethnic linguistic) consciousness, analyzing its cultural specificity using the linguistic tools of cognitive science. We consider it expedient to study the linguistic consciousness of the Pomors in the context of the Russian national consciousness.

As a principle of the study of linguistic consciousness, N.V. Ufimtsev and Yu.N. Karaulov proposes to consider lexicalized units, including on the basis of lexical associations of native speakers. By using this method it becomes possible to reconstruct the linguistic consciousness of an ethnos not only on present stage development of the language, but also the actualization of the ethnic linguistic consciousness of previous historical periods. Yu.N. Karaulov, in the context of the concept of linguistic personality, distinguishes 3 components of this model: lexicon, semanticon and pragmaticon. As I. Ovchinnikova notes, linguistic consciousness represents the interaction of lexical units (lexicon), due to the cognitive and communicative experience of a native speaker (his semanticon and pragmaticon).

We are impressed by the concept of N.F. Alefirenko, who substantiates the expediency of using the term "linguistic consciousness" in connection with its neurophysiological reality, the confirmation of which can be found in modern research in the field of neurophysiology and genetics. One of the fundamental arguments in favor of linguistic consciousness is, according to the scientist, the isomorphism of the genetic and linguistic codes as "a deep mechanism for recoding information from cognitive structures to linguistic structures" . The scientist distinguishes between the concepts of "consciousness" and "linguistic consciousness" on the basis of various types knowledge that captures these phenomena. So, consciousness integrates encyclopedic knowledge, linguistic consciousness - verbalized knowledge that serves as a mechanism for updating the components of cognitive consciousness. The result of the activation of the elements of cognitive consciousness in the process of their linguization is linguistic presuppositions, which, at the next stage of transformation, "by means of speech-cogitative modal-evaluative components develop into cultural-pragmatic components of linguistic semantics" . The end product of this type of transformation is the so-called artifacts– linguoculturological units: signs, symbols, linguistic images as a cumulative result of the heuristic activity of the ethnocultural community [Ibid.]. The listed units, due to their socially significant activity and depending on the intentions of the native speaker, perform a whole range of expressive-evaluative and other functions. The result of their objectification is the system of generated meanings - the content basis of linguistic consciousness. As a result, language functions not only as a means of conceptualization and categorization, but also becomes a tool for determining the behavioral model of a particular ethnocultural community [Ibid.]. Ethnocultural specificity of linguistic consciousness, according to N.F. Alefirenko, is conditioned by the system of spiritual values, traditional way of life and cultural stereotypes, codified in prototypical features, as well as in proverbs, idioms, metaphors and other stable stylistic figures - language structures that serve as means of conceptualizing reality. At the stage of categorization of the world, linguistic consciousness at the analytical level shares empirical knowledge about the surrounding reality, establishes certain relationships between them, and thereby supplements cognitive knowledge with linguistic ones. At the synthetic level, linguistic consciousness, on the one hand, codifies the experience of cognitive activity in its units, on the other hand, it classifies it by means of a typology of signs that are distributed depending on the type of linguistic relations: epidigmatic (derivative-semantic), semantic, syntagmatic and stylistic. This functional specificity of linguistic consciousness also confirms the fact of the non-identity of the linguistic sign and cognitive structures [Ibid.].

Thus, N.F. Alefirenko considers linguistic consciousness as a special cognitive phenomenon, a kind of conceptual space and a derivative of ethno-cultural consciousness as a complex result of reflecting reality, [Alefirenko 2009: 112]. The scientist defines linguistic consciousness through the following metaphor: "linguistic consciousness is a testing ground, and linguistic signs are a means for meaning-generating activity in the process of solving cognitive problems in order to further master the surrounding world" . N.F. Alefirenko emphasizes the fact that the meaning of a linguistic sign plus its semiotic nature is an expression of a specific form of linguistic consciousness that captures the cultural and historical experience of the people [Ibid.].

The concept is comprehended by the scientist as an element of consciousness that serves as the semantic and constructive core of any conceptual space (conceptosphere) and, as a consequence, of linguistic consciousness [Ibid.]. From here concept - a structural and semantic element of linguistic consciousness. This is manifested in the fact that the concept encodes in its structure the entire set of syntagmatic, paradigmatic and ethnocultural connections of semantic entities within the framework of consciousness [Ibid.].

The mechanism of interaction between consciousness and language, according to N.F. Alefirenko, can be represented using the following model: a verbal-thinking act (located within a certain socio-cultural space and proceeding in the corresponding semantic field) => the fact of practical consciousness => its linguistic objectification => linguistic consciousness. Accordingly, language is not an external attribute of consciousness, but an objectified consciousness capable of "preemptive reflection of naturally expected changes in the surrounding world" [Ibid.].

N.F. Alefirenko singles out the level and O left model of structuring linguistic consciousness. As the scientist notes, in cognitive linguistics the level principle (P.Ya. Galperin, Yu.N. Karaulov, G.A. Chupina, etc.) is widely used, which corresponds to the mechanism of verbalization of concepts in the process of encoding and recoding information [Ibid.]. The model of level structuring of linguistic consciousness includes 3 components: 1) lexical-semantic code (thesaurus); 2) grammar code; 3) communication code [Ibid].? [Electronic resource] / I. G. Ovchinnikova // Philological Notes - 2008. Part 1. Macedonia-Slovenia-Croatia-Russia. Access mode: URL: http://philologicalstudies.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=33&Itemid=62 (accessed 10/11/2013).

The concept of consciousness is used by all the humanities and a significant part of the natural sciences, although this concept is one of the most difficult to define concepts of modern science.

Note that in science there is still no clear distinction between the terms thinking and consciousness. These concepts are interpreted in different ways, sometimes they are opposed to each other, sometimes they are used as synonyms. In our understanding, the term consciousness, in principle, emphasizes the static aspect of the phenomenon, and thinking - the dynamic one. Consciousness is a property of the brain, thinking is the activity of the brain endowed with consciousness (that is, mental activity). It is in this aspect that it seems possible for us to distinguish between thinking and consciousness, since these two terms exist. In this paper, we will focus on the study of consciousness.

In philosophical and psychological literature, consciousness is defined as a property (function) of highly organized matter - the brain, which consists in the ability of a person to reflect external being in the form of sensory and mental images. At the same time, it is noted that the mental images of consciousness determine the purposeful activity of a person, consciousness regulates the relationship of the individual with the surrounding natural and social reality, enables the individual to comprehend his own being, inner spiritual world and allows you to improve reality in the process of social and practical activities. Consciousness exists in various forms.

"Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" ed. S. A. Kuznetsova (St. Petersburg, 1998) defines consciousness as follows:

1. The human ability to reproduce reality in thinking.

2. Perception and understanding of the surrounding reality, characteristic of man; mental activity, mind, reason. // Ability to meaningfully perceive reality (loss of consciousness)

3. Understanding, awareness by a person, a group of people public life; views, views of people as representatives of social classes, strata.

4. Clear understanding, awareness of something, thought, feeling, sensation of something (consciousness of duty).

5. open Consciousness (Where is your consciousness?)

It is easy to see that all meanings, including the fifth, are equally related to consciousness as a reflection of reality and simply reveal its different sides.

Modern ideas about consciousness come from the multiplicity of types and forms of consciousness.

Can be distinguished the following types consciousness:

according to the subject of mental activity (the sphere of application of consciousness), political, scientific, religious, ecological, everyday, class, aesthetic, economic, etc. are distinguished;

according to belonging to the subject of consciousness, gender, age, social (professional, humanitarian, technical), personal, public, group, etc. consciousness are distinguished;

according to the degree of formation, developed and undeveloped consciousness are distinguished;

according to the principle underlying consciousness, they distinguish between global, democratic, conservative, progressive, reactionary, etc. consciousness;

according to the skill provided, the type of intellectual activity provided by consciousness - creative, technical, heuristic, artistic, etc.

Further classification is also possible, which, however, is not included in this moment to our tasks. All these types of consciousness are specific varieties of consciousness “in general”, or “simply consciousness”, considered globally, in a complex way. Consciousness "in general" is proposed to be called cognitive, emphasizing its leading "cognizing" side - consciousness is formed as a result of the subject's cognition of the surrounding reality, and the content of consciousness is knowledge about the world obtained as a result of the cognitive activity of consciousness.

Recently, the concept of "linguistic consciousness" has become more and more widespread. What is the relationship between this concept and the concept of cognitive consciousness?

The concept of "linguistic consciousness" is currently widely used in the titles of collections and conferences - Ethno-cultural specificity of linguistic consciousness. M., 1996; Linguistic consciousness: formation and functioning. M., 1998: Linguistic consciousness and the image of the world. M., 2000, etc., it is used by linguists, psychologists, culturologists, ethnographers, etc. Linguistic consciousness is described as a new object of psycholinguistics, which has been formed in the last 15 years [Linguistic consciousness and image of the world 2000: 24]. Note that the concepts of consciousness and linguistic consciousness in linguistics and psycholinguistics, as well as in cultural studies, are often still used undifferentiated, often as synonyms.

So, in one of the first special works on the Problem of Linguistic Consciousness (collective monograph “Language and Consciousness: Paradoxical Rationality” edited by E.F. Tarasov, published at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1993), the scientific editor states: “in the monograph “language consciousness” and simply “consciousness "are used to describe the same phenomenon - human consciousness" (p.7).

At present, this approach has already become a thing of the past, and many researchers point out that it is impossible to put an equal sign between consciousness and linguistic consciousness. We can say that the concept of linguistic consciousness has undergone a certain evolution over the past decades. However, there is still no clarity in the distinction between these two concepts and there is a very broad interpretation of linguistic consciousness, which makes this concept scientifically meaningless. T. N. Ushakova quite rightly notes that the concept of linguistic consciousness is useful and promising for studying the relationship between the psyche and speech, but at present it has a fairly wide and indefinite “referential field”, emphasizing that this “contains a danger to scientific thought : with the enormity of the problem of the connection between the psyche and matter, there is a temptation to present the transition from one to the other as simple and direct” [Linguistic consciousness and image of the world 2000: 22].

In the same edition, E. F. Tarasov differentiates consciousness and linguistic consciousness, defining the latter as “a set of images of consciousness formed and externalized with the help of linguistic means - words, free and stable phrases, sentences, texts and associative fields [Linguistic consciousness and the image of the world 2000: 26].

Note, however, that in this definition two aspects are combined - the formation of consciousness and its externalization, which is far from the same thing. Consciousness in ontogenesis and phylogenesis is formed with the participation of language, the signs of which serve as material supports for generalization in the process of forming concepts in consciousness, but consciousness itself, as mentioned above, does not need language for functioning. As for the externalization of consciousness by language, this indisputable fact, which makes consciousness accessible to observation and provides the very possibility of exchanging information in society, cannot indicate the presence of some special linguistic consciousness - simply “consciousness” is externalized, which does not acquire any special "linguistic" status.

A. A. Leontiev draws attention to the failure of the expression “linguistic consciousness”: “the epithet “linguistic” in the phrase “linguistic consciousness” should not mislead us. This epithet has no direct relation to language as a traditional subject of linguistics. To portray language (in its traditional linguistic interpretation) as something that mediates a person's attitude to the world means falling into a vicious circle" [Language and consciousness: paradoxical rationality 1993: 17].

The term “linguistic consciousness” to denote the general connection between language and consciousness (which does not cause and never caused any doubts in anyone) or to denote the fact of the externalization of consciousness by language cannot be recognized as meaningful. It does not provide any new understanding of the problem.

At the same time, in linguistics and psycholinguistics, the mental mechanisms of speech that ensure human speech activity have not yet been terminology. It seems that it is these mechanisms that represent the linguistic consciousness of a person. Let us also quote E. F. Tarasov: “Linguistics, having linguistic consciousness as an object of analysis, studied most often on the basis of its verbal fixations, has created sophisticated analytical procedures, the psychological reality of which is not always obvious” [Language and consciousness: paradoxical rationality 1993: 15 ].

One should fully agree with this statement: traditional linguistics studies precisely linguistic consciousness - the rules for the use of language, norms, the ordering of language in the mind, etc., without being aware of the psychological reality of the descriptions being performed. At some stage, this was enough, but at the present stage, it is the communicative, anthropocentric direction in linguistics that has become dominant, and precisely because a natural interest has arisen in a language that functions in real communication, and not a dead language abstracted from the native speaker. This led to the development of research in the field of mental communication mechanisms - associative-verbal networks (Sentry), associative fields, etc.

Under linguistic consciousness (in other terminology - linguistic thinking, speech thinking) - it is proposed to understand the totality of mental mechanisms for generating, understanding speech and storing language in the mind, that is, mental mechanisms that ensure the process of human speech activity. Psycholinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, ontolinguistics, and developmental linguistics deal with these problems in different aspects (cf. [Tarasov 2000: 24]). This is “knowledge used by communicants in the production and perception of speech messages” [Ethnocultural specificity of linguistic consciousness 1996: 11].

Linguistic consciousness is studied experimentally, in particular, with the help of a free associative experiment - it allows you to reconstruct the various connections of language units in the mind and reveal the nature of their interaction in various processes of understanding, storing and generating speech works, as well as other experimental methods.

Thus, linguistic consciousness is a part of consciousness that provides the mechanisms of linguistic (speech) activity: the generation of speech, the perception of speech and the storage of language in the mind. It is psycholinguistics that is the science, the subject of which is the linguistic consciousness of a person.

Linguistic consciousness is a component of cognitive consciousness that “manages” the mechanisms of human speech activity; it is one of the types of cognitive consciousness that provides such an activity as operating with speech. It is formed in a person in the process of acquiring a language and is improved all his life, as he replenishes his knowledge of the rules and norms of the language, new words, meanings, as communication skills improve in various fields as you learn new languages.

However, human speech activity itself is a component of a broader concept - human communicative activity. In this regard, the problem of distinguishing between linguistic and communicative consciousness arises.

The problem of consciousness in philosophy is one of the main and most difficult to solve. The point is that consciousness does not exist separately from the person like some foreign object for study, it cannot be extracted from a person in order to study better. Therefore, a person has to cognize human consciousness with the help of the same consciousness that he cognizes. In fact, a person must know himself, and do it with maximum objectivity, which in itself is a difficult task, since apart from rational knowledge consciousness, a person always uses and irrational factors (guesses, intuition, emotions, mystical insights and insights), the objectivity of which cannot be verified

The problem of consciousness includes two questions . The first one consists in an attempt to determine how exactly the objects and phenomena of the surrounding world penetrate the consciousness and become stronger in it. How do we make sense of the world? Second, how does consciousness work? How images are formed in it, abstract concepts that we cannot see, feel. For example, the concept of time, space, causality, good, evil, justice, beauty.

To answer both of these questions means to solve the problem of consciousness, to understand the mechanism of its work. But so far the answers to these questions are only hypotheses, assumptions.

In philosophy new time (17th - 19th centuries) a tradition was established to determine consciousness through the process and result of cognition , i.e. to represent consciousness as a set of knowledge about the surrounding world, received by the person himself and by previous generations, held in memory. Knowledge about the simple and everyday, as well as knowledge about the complex, i.e. about what is theoretically deduced by inference. Simply put, consciousness is defined as thinking and memory , his brain activity aimed at the world around him.

However, it is obvious that consciousness is not limited to thinking , is not only a collection of knowledge accumulated by man. Some other mental states that are not directly connected with any knowledge must be included in consciousness. For example, emotions, willpower, premonitions, anxiety. Faith occupies a significant layer of consciousness. Moreover, not only religious, but, for example, faith in oneself, faith in justice.

In the first half of the century, the works of the outstanding Austrian psychiatrist and psychologist Sigmund Freud in the mind of a person a huge and still not amenable to unambiguous explanation was discovered unconscious . It turned out that fear, suppressed emotions and desires are also part of consciousness.

Finally, it is quite obvious that consciousness guides not only the rational actions of a person based on his knowledge and experience, but also irrational actions, actions that we call reckless. A person in any, even the most ordinary situation, has a choice - how to act - good or bad, selfish or disinterested, fair or unfair. Those. his own consciousness always puts a moral choice in front of a person, and therefore in front of himself (consciousness). A person says to himself: "I did this because ...".

In connection with this approach, in the philosophy of the 20th century, the question began to be discussed that consciousness is not a body of knowledge, but a phenomenon of a moral (moral order) giving a person permissions and prohibitions for various actions.

Recent Successes quantum physics demonstrated that the existence and behavior elementary particles directly depends on whether the researcher observes them. This incredible discovery means that consciousness and surrounding a person the world (being) are not in opposition to each other. Consciousness is part of being . It not only reflects and comprehends the world around a person, but also constructs it. And in this connection, the assertion that until recently only in mystical literature that thought is material cannot be considered heretical.

A person is not only a biological organism, but also a social being, which means that he needs a means of coordinating his activities with other people, in transmitting and receiving information, i.e. in a special system of signs that he would understand himself and that others would understand. Language is the main sign system that serves as a means of human communication. . It is a specific means of storing and transmitting information, managing human behavior.

Language is the second and no less important code for transmitting information. The first code is biological. It is the human genome that transmits hereditary information, i.e. congenital signs. Language is non-biological, i.e. social code through which knowledge is transmitted.

Language, unlike the biological code, is a purely social phenomenon. . There can be no language outside the collective existence. Linguistic signs - expressed orally or in writing - allow you to fix a thought and express it. In this sense, language is an intermediary between consciousnesses. various people, as well as an intermediary between consciousness and human actions. Thanks to language, human consciousness becomes a reality. A person with his thoughts, clothed in a verbal form, informs himself that he is conscious, and informs everyone else about it.

The main functions of the language are :

a) communicative and informative - thanks to the language, communication occurs and people transmit different information to each other. The pragmatic function can also be included here - i.e. control of some people by others with the help of language commands;

b) cognitive - our knowledge about the world is clothed in verbal form and exists precisely in the form of words and sentences.

In addition to natural language, i.e. oral and written speech of people, there are artificial languages ​​- sign language, mathematical language of formulas and signs.

The question of the relationship between language and consciousness (thinking) is solved differently in philosophy.

Verbalists - supporters of the existence of thinking only on the basis of language - they believe that a person thinks only in words, speech turns, spoken aloud or originated in the brain and unspoken.

However, the existence of nonverbal thought is evident. Thinking without words is also possible. For example, in extreme situations, a person thinks very quickly and without building his thoughts into words and sentences. In a dream, a person thinks without words, but in the images of dreams.

In modern philosophy, on the question of the relationship between thinking and language, consciousness and language, it is thinking that determines. Language and thought form a unity. For a person, one is not possible without the other, but still, thought does not always have a verbal expression, therefore it is wrong to reduce thinking and consciousness only to language.

In the 20th century, the question was also raised about the relationship between language and reality, about how accurately our language is able to describe reality. Representatives neopositivism and postmodernism believe that the very idea that through language we express the real content of the world around us is meaningless. Language was created by people for their own own needs. And the way we talk about reality does not at all reflect its true properties and qualities. Moreover, language distorts thought, since language has its own patterns and limitations - grammatical, lexical. The task of knowing the truth in this case is to find ways of expressing a thought before giving it a linguistic form, and only such a thought should be recognized as correct. This task - if it exists - is extremely complex and has not yet been solved by anyone. Therefore, in his knowledge of the world, a person must start from what he has - from consciousness, thinking and language that formulates and transmits thoughts. The experience of the development of human civilization shows that this is enough for a correct understanding of reality and knowledge of the truth.

Similar information.