Culture and language. Language as the guardian of culture. Reflection of the national character and national psychological characteristics of the people in the language

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

SAINT PETERSBURG ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS

FACULTY OF SOCIAL MANAGEMENT

on the basics of linguistic culture

on the topic: " Ilanguage as a reflection of the history and culture of the people»

Completed by: student Gribel O.V.

II Correspondence course

Faculty of Social Management

Specialty: public relations

St. Petersburg 2010

1. Introduction

2. Connection of language and thinking

3. Language and history

4. Language and culture

5. Conclusion

6. Literature used

1. Introduction

LANGUAGE - a system of signs that serves as a means of human communication, mental activity (thinking), a way of expressing a person's self-consciousness, transmitting from generation to generation and storing information. Language is the bearer of social consciousness. From the standpoint of materialism, historically, the basis for the emergence of language is the activity of joint people. Language exists and is realized through speech.

Language proficiency, the ability to communicate, to achieve success in the process of communication are those personality characteristics that largely determine a person’s achievements in almost all areas of life, contribute to his social adaptation to the changing conditions of the modern world.

As a means of cognizing reality, language provides the development of intellectual and creative abilities, develops abstract thinking, memory and imagination, forms the skills of independent activity, self-education and self-realization of the individual.

Linguistic and linguistic competencies - systematization of knowledge about language as a sign system and social phenomenon, its structure, development and functioning; general information about linguistics as a science; mastering the basic norms of the Russian literary language, enriching vocabulary and grammatical structure students' speeches; improving the ability to analyze and evaluate linguistic phenomena and facts, the ability to use various linguistic dictionaries.

Linguistic competence - awareness of the language as a form of expression of national culture, the relationship between the language and the history of the people, the national and cultural specifics of the Russian language, knowledge of the norms of Russian speech etiquette, culture of interethnic communication.

2. FROMelmblanguage and thinking

This connection is undeniable.

Language as such arose a very long time ago. Many thousands of years ago, people adapted their articulatory apparatus for communication, for transmitting information to each other.

How exactly it all began, we now do not know, but we know for sure that the language reflects the ideas of the people about the nature surrounding it (in general sense of this word), his picture of the world. People perceive some object, pass it through their consciousness and give it one name or another. Hearing the word "ball", we imagine something round and soft. On the one hand, these are language stereotypes passed down from generation to generation, on the other hand, our perception of the world.

For example, if you look at Russian history, then we will see that in the period after the revolution, during the formation of a new statehood, many words went out of use, but even more came in, they were invented as a reflection of everything new that appeared in people's lives.

And it all started with the fact that human consciousness began to change. All great orators since Antiquity have been great thinkers. These were the people who created the normative literary language. These people had philosophical thinking, so we still use their works. Literary, cultural and scientific theories and definitions created by them then are relevant to this day and are the basis for modern sciences.

Not only language is a reflection of people's thinking and the world around them, but vice versa. For example, people who study foreign languages, thinking, thinking, conduct some kind of internal dialogues only in their native language, because only it can fully represent their picture of the world. That is why it is impossible to master a foreign language perfectly.

The language of the people is perhaps the greatest part of their culture, a mirror image of their mentality. For example, Russian people love long, ornate sayings, among the English you will never find long, many complex words, and the German language, on the contrary, is saturated with them. About some languages ​​as parts of the culture of a certain people, some ideas have developed, such as that in English you need to conduct business negotiations, in French you need to talk with women about love, and in German - with the enemy about your thoughts. One cannot but agree that there is some truth in this.

3. Language and history

Since the time when the language was recognized as a historically changing phenomenon, its connection with the history of the people and the need to study it for the purposes of history and inseparably with it have been repeatedly emphasized. Already one of the very first founders of comparative historical linguistics, Rasmus Rask, wrote: “Religious beliefs, customs and traditions of peoples, their civil institutions in ancient time- all that we know about them - at best, can only give us a hint of the kinship and origin of these peoples. The appearance in which they first appear before us may serve to draw some conclusions about their previous state, or about the ways in which they arrived at the present. But no means of knowing the origin of peoples and their kinship in hoary antiquity, when history leaves us, is as important as language. (P. Rusk. Research in the field of the Old Norse language.)

Even Soviet linguists proceeded from the premise that the language and history of the people are closely related to each other.

In this respect, they continued the scientific tradition, which was founded with the understanding of language as a time-changing phenomenon and which passed through the entire subsequent development of the science of language, enriched by an understanding of the social role of language. This last demanded that the historical approach to the study of language cease to be limited by the actual linguistic framework and be connected with the history of society. In other words, we are now talking not just about the history of language, but about the history of language as a social phenomenon.

Thus, the position on the relationship between language and society remains an unshakable basis for the scientific study of language. But this provision should not be interpreted too narrowly and one-sidedly. First, language learning cannot be limited to the historical aspect. Secondly, studying the language and history of the people in close connection with each other, one should not forget about the specifics of the patterns of development inherent, on the one hand, to the language, and on the other hand, to the native speaker of this language - the people. Thus, in linguistics, the problem of the connection between language and history should be considered from the point of view of how the structure of the language reacts to the facts of a common history (what refraction these facts receive in the structure of the language). And, thirdly, the question of the connection between the history of a language and the history of a people cannot be limited to only one direction and trace only the influence of the history of society on the development of the language. Undoubtedly, the most directly related to this problem are also different kinds contacts of languages ​​(which are determined by historical and territorial factors), the processes and forms of crossing languages, the relationship of language and culture, the permeability of various spheres of languages, the relationship of language to social structure societies, etc.

4. Language and culture

language thinking history culture

This issue can be considered in two directions. One direction establishes the dependence of the language on the general cultural state of the people. The study of this issue has much in common with the problem of the connection between language and thinking. Another direction studies the dependence of the structural features of individual languages ​​on the specific forms of culture of a given people. In this case, one sometimes speaks of the permeability of the language in relation to cultural phenomena. Let us consider these two lines of research in turn.

There is no doubt that language as a social phenomenon depends on the general cultural state of the people, which also implies the corresponding forms of thinking. When P. Ya. Chernykh says that “the phenomenon of abstracting grammatical facts that initially did not have an abstract meaning, as characteristic development of the grammatical structure cannot serve as a basis for denying any connection between the history of the grammatical structure of a particular language and the history of a given people ”(P. Ya. Chernykh. On the connection between the development of a language and the history of a people. Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, otdel. lit. and yaz., 1951), then in a general form one cannot but agree with him. But, on the other hand, this factor should not be overestimated for the formation of specific phenomena of the grammatical structure of the language.

Both in the history of individual languages ​​and entire language families one can find quite numerous facts showing the development of the grammatical elements of the language in the same direction. It is possible to state cases of parallel development of a number of phenomena in grammatical systems, even languages ​​that are extremely different in their structure. Such general and parallel processes of development, obviously, can be connected to a certain extent with the cultural development of society, which determines the development in the field of thinking in the direction from more concrete to more abstract categories. The cultural state of society, therefore, is associated with the language in this case through the medium of thinking.

The question of the connection between language and culture, of course, cannot be considered in a narrow perspective. Language can respond to cultural phenomena. So, if the history of culture has not reached the corresponding stage in its development and does not yet know the written language or the normative influence of the literary language (or is losing it), then the language of this people turns out to be less ordered, less normalized. There is also no doubt that a people at a high level of civilization operates in speech communication with more abstract lexical categories than a people of a more backward culture. Linguistics has collected rich material indicating that the languages ​​of the peoples of a backward culture often do not have words denoting generic concepts (for example, there are no words for a tree or an animal in general, but there is a very branched nomenclature of designations for their various species and breeds) and have formants that classify words according to extremely specific features (the so-called word classes).

We now turn to the consideration of the dependence of the formation of the structural features of individual languages ​​on the specific forms of culture of a given people. W. Schmidt tried to put ethnological concepts of cultures as the basis for the classification of languages. Outlining the objectives of his work, he wrote: "The larger groupings that have arisen - we will call them linguistic circles - based in themselves on a purely linguistic principle, we will compare with the cultural circles established by ethnological studies in order to find out to what extent large linguistic groupings coincide in their boundaries with ethnological ones and what kind of internal relationship exists between them. However, V. Schmidt's attempt, linking language not only with ethnological, but also with racial complexes, did not meet with a positive attitude towards itself and ended in failure.

The problem of the connection between language and culture found a peculiar refraction in N. Ya. Marr. Declaring language as a superstructure, he made its stage-by-stage change dependent on ideology. Ideological changes, in his opinion, also determine the transformation of languages. In this theory of N. Ya. Mappa, perhaps, the vulgarizing foundations of his teaching are most clearly manifested, striving to fit the development of the language into pre-prepared sociological schemes and actually approaching the theories of W. Schmidt, although N. Ya: Marr himself and his followers often sharply criticized the racial basis of his classification.

The solution to the issue of The reason for the relationship between culture and language should be linked to the following two factors. The first of these concerns the definition of the concept of culture or the cultural factor in the development of languages. Thus, the fact that one people has a cultural predominance over another can lead to the fact that one language occupies a subordinate position in relation to another and borrows from this latter one or another of its elements. The so-called prestige of the language, usually associated with a sense of national identity, is a very real historical value, and it did not in the least contribute to the fact that, for example, Irish, Greek, Armenian, Polish retained their full vitality in conditions in which others languages ​​assimilated among the languages ​​of their conquerors. But this kind of phenomena cannot be considered only in the aspect of the connection between the problem of language and culture. They, no doubt, should be considered on a par with such phenomena as the economic and political predominance of peoples, military conquests, migrations, etc. In other words, these are general historical phenomena, although they are associated with the culture of peoples.

What, then, should be attributed to proper cultural phenomena? Culture, according to the definition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, is "the totality of society's achievements in the field of education, science, art and other areas of spiritual life." Therefore, if we try to establish correspondences between the phenomena of culture in this sense and the facts of the structure of the language, then with a positive solution to this issue, in the final conclusions we will have to recognize the language as an ideological formation, which contradicts everything that we know about language. There can be no such correspondences, and, therefore, it is completely wrong to talk about a causal relationship between culture and language in terms of specific phenomena. But here two important reservations are necessary, which lead us to the second of the two factors mentioned above.

Between the phenomena of culture and the facts of the structure of the language there is no direct causal relationship and direct correspondence, but changes in culture can find an indirect, indirect reflection in the language, that is, there is a general relationship between them; E. Sapir admits this when he writes that "the history of language and the history of culture develop in parallel." But the point here is not the coincidence of the general development trends mentioned above, but something else. Thus, lexical neoplasms caused by the cultural development of a people can lead to morphological or phonetic changes, for example, when a certain number of borrowed words introduce a new phonetic phenomenon, which then spreads in a purely linguistic way and enters the phonological system of the language. In this case, therefore, we are not talking about the fact that the categories of language and the categories of thinking, represented in the phenomena of culture, may have a general tendency of development towards greater abstractness of their content, but about the emergence of specific facts of the linguistic structure, which are ultimately stimulated by cultural development of society, but are outside this trend. Although the origins of this kind of linguistic innovation lie in the facts of culture, their linguistic expression is determined by the structural features of this particular language. This circumstance gives us grounds to speak about the possibility of indirect influences of culture on language.

Now let's turn to another caveat. So far, the conversation has been about the development of the language and its dependence on the cultural development of the people, as well as about the greater or lesser richness of the spiritual content (in the words of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia) of a particular people and the influence of this circumstance on the structure of the language. But the connection between language and culture can also be considered from the point of view of the originality of the forms of both phenomena. And in this last case, we can find a significant affinity between language and culture. In the simplest way, this proximity is found in the presence of a number of words associated with the realities characteristic of a particular culture and therefore, as a rule, with great difficulty and only descriptively translated into another language. So, in the Yakut language there are the following words that do not have direct equivalents in Russian: soboo - to become tasteless (about the meat of an exhausted animal), tuut - skis lined with leather, oloo - to spend the winter on pasture (only about a horse), etc. e. Another evidence of this dependence of language on culture is the structure of the entire vocabulary of languages, in which it is possible to distinguish various lexical categories associated with features characteristic of a given culture. Here the quantitative moment is also important, since usually the phenomena that are more significant for a given people have a more detailed nomenclature. E. Nida summarizes the relationship between culture and language (more precisely, its vocabulary) of this order in the following two rules:

1. Vocabulary related to the central elements of culture is proportionately more comprehensive than vocabulary related to the peripheral features of culture. In other words, the volume of the vocabulary relating to any cultural phenomenon is directly proportional to its cultural significance.

2. Cultural subgroups have proportionately more extensive vocabulary in the area of ​​their differences.

A certain kind of cultural models also underlie the metaphorical designations of mental states, when sadness, for example, is indicated in the Khabba tribe in Sudan by the expression "to have a diseased liver", the Bambara tribe (also in Sudan) uses the expression "to have a black eye" in this case, and mossi (north of the Gold Coast) is "to have a rotten heart", and uduk (in Sudan) is "to have a heavy stomach". A more distant connection between linguistic and cultural models is hidden in expressions such as the Russian eye of a needle, which in English will have the literal meaning of “needle eye”, among the Kekchi Indians - “needle face”, among the Pirro tribe in Peru - “needle nostril”, among the Khakachin tribe in Burma - the “mouth of the needle”, the Amuzgos tribe in Mexico - the “hole needle”, etc.

The relationship between language and culture manifests itself not only in vocabulary, but also in grammar, although in a less obvious way. So, in the language of New Caledonia there are two possessive systems, the first of which can be conditionally called a close (or intimate) belonging, and the second - a distant belonging. The first system covers names with the meaning "mother", "liver", "descendant", and the second - "father", "heart", "life". At first glance, this distribution appears to be completely arbitrary. However, it becomes understandable if we consider that matriarchy has long dominated New Caledonia, that the liver symbolizes the whole person (it also has this meaning in the ritual of sacrifice), and the descendant, embodying the continuation of life, is more important than the life of his parents.

Examples of this kind, the number of which can be multiplied almost limitlessly, convincingly testify in favor of the position that the originality of the forms of culture, as a rule, is reflected in the language.

5. Conclusion

Above, the influence of the history of the people on the development of the language was considered. Now it remains to clarify the cardinal question of this whole problem: to what extent can the history of a people influence the laws of language development?

It is obvious that a certain general dependence can be established between a certain aspect of language and social processes, as is the case in the other cases discussed above. For example, the development of a language in the direction from the tribal language to the language of the people and from this latter to the national language is possible only because such is the law of the development of society. With this passage of languages ​​through individual stages of development, phenomena arise in them that are characteristic only of each stage separately. Thus, relations between territorial dialects and the language of the nationality, on the one hand, and between territorial dialects and the national language, on the other, develop differently. A change in these relations, in turn, cannot but leave its mark on the structure of the language. But such a dependence in each individual language takes on a deeply different forms not only because the transformation, for example, of a national language into a national language always takes place under special historical conditions, but also because each language has structural features specific to it. The structural difference between languages ​​leads to the fact that each of them can react far from the same to the same stimuli. But other types of dependence of the development of the language on the history of the people are also possible.

As noted above, the development of a language is ultimately stimulated by the needs of communication, which become more complicated with the development of society. A language develops as long as it functions as a means of communication in the environment of any society, and when it is deprived of these functions (or narrows them down to an auxiliary "language for communication" between multilingual representatives of a closed professional circle, such as Latin in the middle century), it turns into a "dead" language. The language receives incentives from society for its development, and these incentives are of a certain nature, since they are born in concrete historical conditions.

However, those changes in social life, to which the language reacts in the process of its development, are expressed in the language in accordance with its structural features. Thus, the phenomena of language development in this aspect appear to be certain, depending on the structure of the language, ways of implementing extralinguistic stimuli that are born in the history of the people. This general proposition determines this and the most obvious type of dependence of the development of language on the history of society.

At the same time, the history of a people does not represent an absolutely indifferent aggregate, whose role is reduced only to setting in motion the development of language. The specific paths of the history of the people, one or another of their directions, the conditions for the functioning of languages ​​created by them - all this can lead to the emergence in languages ​​of new phenomena that are so accustomed to the structure of the language that they already take on a natural character.

Thus, we come to the following conclusions. The history of a people does not create laws for the development of a language, but serves as a general stimulus for its development. But the history of the people can contribute - indirectly through the structure of the language - to the creation in the language of specific new phenomena, sometimes taking on a natural character.

6. Literature used

1. Linguoculturology: textbook. Allowance for students. higher textbook institution. - 3rd ed., Spanish. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2007.

2. Levyash I.Ya. Culture and language. - Minsk, 1998.

3. Benveniste E. General linguistics. - M., 1974.

4. Zvegintsev V. Essays on General Linguistics.

5. Internet sources.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Basic concepts of language and culture, their relationship. Features of the ethnic community, reflection in the language of the dynamics of culture and changes in the development of society. Typological features and genesis of the Korean language, the influence of other states on its development.

term paper, added 05/31/2010


Philosophical foundations of Humboldt's linguistic concept. Definition of the essence of the language. The doctrine of the internal form of language. The problem of the correlation of language and thinking. The doctrine of the origin and development of language. Morphological classification of languages. Antinomies of language.

abstract, added 03/31/2008


Analysis of the connection between the history of the English people and the history of the language. Disclosure of the patterns of development of the language as a specific system, in which the complete relationship of the development of individual elements of the structure of the language is carried out: phonetic, lexical.

presentation, added 05/04/2014


Language is the best, never fading and ever-re-blooming flower of the people and their entire spiritual life. The language spiritualizes the whole nation, its whole life, history, customs. Language is the history of the people, the path of civilization and culture from the origins to the present day.

abstract, added 03/06/2009


What is language. The concept of culture of speech. Formation of functional styles of the Russian language. Essence, structure, interconnection of material and spiritual cultures. The problem of the relationship between language and culture. The system of images fixed in Russian phraseology.

abstract, added 04/27/2015


American English as an option in English. The problem of the status of American English, lexical features as a reflection of the culture and history of the people. Ways of development of American vocabulary and features of word formation.

term paper, added 05/29/2010


The fact of the dialogue of language and culture. Reflection in the language of people's ideas about the world. Reflection of the "folk spirit" in proverbs and sayings of the Russian people. Labor as a basic value in the linguistic consciousness of a Russian person. The concept of "work / laziness".

scientific work, added 12/18/2008


The German language as a reflection of the mentality of its speakers. Analysis of the classification of verbs to determine the general orientation of the mentality of all peoples. The relationship of language and culture and their role in reflecting the type of mentality. The study of the value system of the Germans.

abstract, added 02/09/2013


The originality of the language at different stages of the social history of the people. Writing and typography as factors of language evolution, assessment of the impact of revolutions on this process. Internal and external language changes, the nature and causes of social metamorphosis.

test, added 01/31/2014


The first dictionary of incomprehensible words contained in the list of Pilots of the book. The first printed explanatory dictionary in Russia "Lexis, that is, sayings are briefly collected and interpreted from the Slavic language into a simple Russian dialect." Explanatory Dictionary of Dahl's Living Language.

Reflection of culture in language and speech.

The role of language in the formation and development of human culture can hardly be overestimated. With the help of language, people communicate, create texts in which they record the accumulated experience and knowledge, ideas about the world, and moral and ethical values. Language is closely connected with human thinking and is the main condition for the development of human society. “Language unites and separates people. With the help of language, people can express the most beautiful feelings, formulate grandiose scientific and philosophical ideas and, on the contrary, hide their thoughts and intentions, influence the minds and behavior of other people, subjugate and control them. Language as one of the unique phenomena of human culture has a dual nature. With the help of a word, one can heal the human soul, one can instill in it high ideals and faith in the future, or one can destroy, annihilate, kill” [, 2000; 48].

The concept of "culture", in turn, is also multifaceted and multi-valued, each researcher can put into it a different meaning and definition. Culture is “a set of cultural values, the means of expression of which are science, literature, art”. [, Dictionary of methodological terms ... 1999; 128]. Culture is “a set of achievements of human society in industrial, social and spiritual life” [Bolshoi Explanatory Dictionary, 1998; 478] Since the mid-eighties, social sciences have been describing culture as a generalized civilized space, i.e., products of human thought and activity: experience and norms that determine and regulate human life, people's attitudes to new and different, to ideas, world systems and social formats . The study of a foreign language should be the development of a new starting point in the previous prevailing global outlook of the individual. But this development is never complete, since the individual always brings to foreign language a greater or lesser share of their own point of view - in fact, their own linguistic model” [Humboldt V. Fon, 1985; 107]. In the 19th century, the term culture began to be applied to various societies in connection with the anthropological studies of F. Boas, who devoted his research to the relationship between language and culture as a system of beliefs and values. From this moment on, language and culture are considered inextricably linked. Language, accordingly, reflected and interpreted the cultural concepts of a particular society. The connection between the structure of language and culture can be traced in the works of B. Whorf. Following Whorf, D. Hymes drew attention to speech as a system of culturally determined behavior. This approach is connected with the idea that a foreigner, in order to communicate productively with native speakers, must take into account the rules and patterns of their verbal behavior. Consideration of the causes, processes, and results of the speech activity of a native speaker in a cognitive aspect is called cultural linguistics. This approach, proposed by G. Palmer, suggests exploring how people talk about their own world. It is the penetration into the components of meaning specific to a particular language that will allow “to look at the language as a social phenomenon that reveals a whole world of a different culture” [, 1986; 78].

Thus, the difference between languages, lexical composition, grammar, the absence of certain concepts in one language and the ambiguity of others in another language is determined in the first place, different levels development of societies, different levels of culture, since the language captures all the cultural values ​​and achievements of a particular society, and the development and formation of human culture is impossible without the development of language.

The study of a foreign culture begins with the study of the language. Learning a new form, a new word, the student discovers for himself that part of the culture, that socio-cultural unit that lies behind him. Thus, a foreign culture appears as a mosaic, which is constantly supplemented with new elements, the student perceives it not only as reflected in the language, but also as created by the language itself. the same word in different languages and cultures can have different meanings, and seemingly identical concepts are expressed differently. In Germany, an invitation to your home “for a cup of coffee” means the same as in France an invitation to an aperitif - an expressed desire to continue acquaintance in an intimate setting. Therefore, the transfer of the meaning inherent in the word by simple translation can create a problem. Therefore, it can be rightly argued that the study of a language must be carried out in a socio-cultural context [, 2004; 76].

If we talk about the functioning of a foreign language, it should be noted that, despite the presence of a common code - the same language, the system of meanings in terms of their cultural component will be fundamentally different for its native speaker and for those who use the language as a foreign language. Thus, in the course of intercultural communication, there is not a transfer of meaning, but its creation.

English, like any other language, is potentially open for use in any conceivable communicative situation, and in terms of its application to a specific national culture of the peoples of the world, the entire universe, all existing cultures of the present and past, becomes the object of its application. In reality, the English language is best mastered by its internal culture, that is, the one for which English is the native language (the culture of Great Britain, the USA, English-speaking Canada, etc.).

In her works, Minasova notes that the close relationship and interdependence of teaching foreign languages ​​and intercultural communication are so obvious that they hardly need lengthy explanations. Each foreign language lesson is a crossroads of cultures, it is a practice of intercultural communication, because every word reflects a foreign world and a foreign culture, behind every word there is an idea of ​​the world conditioned by national consciousness [Ter-, 2000; 25]. The modern model of intercultural communication is based on the following postulates, which consider the subjects of communication as:

Bearers of universal human values;

Carriers of a certain national culture;

Carriers of a certain worldview system;

Representatives of a certain subculture;

A unique individuality, determined by gender, age, character, temperament.

In reality, the goal of intercultural communication is not always achieved. The reason lies not only in the picture of the world that each of the participants in intercultural communication inherits along with their native language, but also in the actual psychological characteristics of communication between representatives of different cultures. Since a person is a social being living in a society, a certain ethnic group, it is natural that he was brought up in the coordinate system adopted in this society, and unconsciously considers the behavior, actions and reactions of representatives of other cultures through a system of value judgments, which are the standard in his view; it is the process of evaluating "strangers" through the prism of "ours". This trend is called ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, of course, is an obstacle to the creation of a common meaning in the course of intercultural communication, as it prevents the transition of the concept of "alien" to the concept of "other", but it is this psychological phenomenon that guarantees the integrity of the nation and psychological comfort and stability for its representatives. An individual unprepared for intercultural communication, when communicating with representatives of another culture, will show a desire to distance himself from the interlocutor, which will manifest itself in the following ways: 1) demonstrating disinterest in representatives of other cultures, which will manifest itself in an indifferent tone of voice and manner of speech; 2) restriction or even the desire to avoid contacts with representatives of other cultures; 3) demonstrating a sense of hostility towards speakers of other cultures, which manifests itself in sarcastic or derogatory remarks and comments. The complexity and uniqueness of intercultural communication lies in the fact that, unlike the native cultural environment, even a positive attitude towards “strangers” does not always lead to positive behavioral manifestations due to the lack of both knowledge about the ways of expression in a different culture and the skills to express such relations. It's about stereotypes. Stereotypes are a special category of beliefs that associate ethnic groups with personality traits. The main function of stereotypes is to save mental effort, or, in other words, to protect the human psyche from information overload. Stereotypical perception and behavior based on it is often carried out completely unconsciously. Most individuals, even declaring their critical attitude to stereotypes, are not able to get rid of them in their own unconscious reactions. Stereotypical representations concern non-verbal behavior, specific speech acts, and the very nature of discourse. A special kind of stereotypes are prejudices, statements about other people that have a negative character. Like stereotypes, they have a special vitality and facilitate the perception and self-perception of a person. For example, a typical American prejudice against Russians, as he writes, “is the idea of ​​the latter as drunkards and snobs who pride themselves on possessing useless information.” A number of scientists believe that in the course of preparing students for communication with representatives of other cultures, it is necessary to develop intercultural communication skills, this kind of skill is empathy, an attempt to look at the actions and deeds of a bearer of another culture not just with a benevolent attitude of understanding and acceptance, but putting oneself in others. cultural framework, i.e. the ability to identify with another person. In our opinion, at the stage of language learning at school, it is extremely difficult to develop such a skill in adolescents without special psychological training, as a result of which training should be based on the education of a benevolent approach, which will be based on a logical explanation and interpretation of a number of inconsistencies, interpretation of a different worldview, historically and culturally. conditioned, which is more understandable at this age, and given their main professional area - study. The task of the teacher at this stage is to foster tolerance, acceptance of a foreign culture and the rejection of a one-sided view of the course of things, that is, from understanding the native culture as the only correct and logical and the only measure, that is, the formation of bilingualism or multipolar perception of the world around.

In connection with the foregoing, it is necessary to emphasize that the study of a foreign language should take place with a special psychological attitude and psychological preparation of students for intercultural communication and taking into account the specific qualities of the personality of the interlocutors, in foreign language classes it is necessary to purposefully provide students with knowledge of culture, value systems and norms, accepted in society, it is necessary to develop the skills and abilities of communication with the team, develop voluntary attention and observation, as well as pay attention to the culture of speech, adequate facial expressions and gestures with the help of technical means used in the classroom, and teacher control, in connection with which the importance of formation of socio-cultural competence within the discipline "foreign language".

The language reflects the national psychological characteristics of the worldview, the very nature of the language supports the existing stereotypes and prejudices that are reflected in the language structures themselves, the picture of the world that each of the participants in intercultural communication inherits along with their native language, therefore, for productive communication of representatives of different cultures, it is necessary, on the one hand on the one hand, psychological preparation for intercultural communication, and on the other hand, the development of sociocultural competence. When teaching a foreign language, it is important to pay attention to the development of special psychological qualities of the individual, necessary for the formation of sociocultural competence.

Obviously, language and culture are closely related and are in constant interaction. Language is both a product of culture and its important component, and the condition for the existence of culture, so the language is able to reflect the cultural and national mentality of its speakers.
The reflection of the mentality of the people of the country are international jokes, anecdotes, classical folk literature, oral folk art. Folklore works, passed down from generation to generation, are the result of collective folk art and are devoid of the subjective view of the author, therefore, they are the most reliable source of description of folk character. Let's take, for example, Russian fairy tales: "Self-collection tablecloth", "Goldfish", "By the pike command, according to my desire", etc. In a difficult situation, the hero of the fairy tale (Ivanushka the Fool or Emelya lying on the stove), with more or less waiting for supernatural help, a miracle, "suddenly some luck will come, and life will change." The hero looks stupid and funny, ridiculous, lazy and weak. But he is such only in the eyes of his selfish brothers and ill-wishers, who dump the most difficult work on his shoulders. In fact, our hero is kind, honest, cheerful and carefree, happy with what he has. And at the decisive moment, he turns out to be smart, courageous and caring, thanks to which he defeats evil. Thus, virtue is always rewarded and justice triumphs. Obviously, all these features of the hero are close to the character of the Russian people. Fairy tales reflect the mentality of the people, their views and ideas about life.
The hero of English fairy tales appears completely different. This is Robin Hood, who consciously seeks to destroy all enemies (unlike Russian fairy tales, where the hero just wants to save his head, and victory goes to him along the way). Since America is mainly based on English culture, this is reflected in the character of Americans - purposeful, striving for victory and excellence.
With some caution, one should treat such sources of reflection of the national mentality as anecdotes and classical literature. Classical literature (unlike oral folk art) somewhat distorts the general idea of ​​the people, since each work has a specific author with his individual, subjective view of the world.
Anecdotes and jokes are the source of the stereotypical idea of ​​the character of the people. So, in Russian international jokes, the Germans are obsessed with order and discipline, the French are obsessed with wine and women, the Americans are self-confident and pragmatic, and the Russians are reckless and open, loving vodka and fighting.
A typical example is the following joke:
"Signs of an American:
1. He is proud that it was America that defeated Hitler during the Vietnam War in Iraq.
2. He pays his own child to do the dishes.
3. He will always exchange the ease of a mischievous drunken fight for a tedious trial.
4. Ketchup runs like a red thread through his whole life.
5. He carefully monitors the level of cholesterol on the label.
6. At the last moment, he kills all the bad guys and kisses his wife, after which the credits go over him.
Signs of a Russian person:
1. He can travel by train for seven days to visit a distant relative for a day.
2. Do not eat after the first, even under pain of death. And also after the second, third and, it seems, the fourth and fifth.
3. Gets excited when talking to the porter or waiter.
4. Goes to the garage, to the bathhouse, to fishing, hunting and to the theater to drink.
5. Easily cuts with the most exquisite dish with a tablespoon.
6. Its soul is equal in area to five American, three hundred English and eight hundred Belgian.
Another example. “The UN, conducting a worldwide survey, asked representatives of different countries the question: “Please tell us your opinion on the lack of food for people from other countries.” In almost all countries there were problems with the answer.
In Africa, no one knows the meaning of the word "food".
In Western Europe, no one knows the meaning of the word "lack".
IN Eastern Europe no one knows the meaning of the word "opinion".
In South America, no one knows the meaning of the word "please."
In the US, no one understands what "people from other countries" means. Anecdotes (created about themselves by representatives of a certain culture or other peoples) are built on the basis of existing stereotypes; they do not so much reflect the typical features of the people as they form them.
The most reliable source of reflection of the national character, culture, mentality is the national language. There are 4 main structural levels of the language: phonetics (sound side), vocabulary (vocabulary), grammar (structure of the language) and style (manner of speech). Each language has its own characteristics. For example, the German language is distinguished by the strict orderliness and completeness of all systems at all levels, a disciplined and logical structure, and a “rigid” spelling. The "great and mighty" Russian language is distinguished by the complexity of grammatical and lexical structures, high style of speech, emotionality and disorder. But the American language is easy to use, practical and ideally suited for oral communication. American speech reflects the speed of life and agility of the inhabitants of their country.
The main cultural load is lexicon - words and phrases. It is with their help that a linguistic picture of the world is created. This is especially evident in national proverbs and sayings, phraseological units, idioms and set expressions. The following proverbs characterize the German people: “Arbeit bringt Brot, Faulenzen Hungersnot” (“Work feeds a person, but laziness spoils”), “Morgenstunde hat Gold im Munde” (“The morning hour gives us gold”, “Every business must start in the morning” ), “Wenn man im Leben Erfolg haben will, darf man sich nicht durch jede Kleinigkeit ins Bockshorn jagen lassen” (“If someone wants to be successful in life, then one should not be afraid of every little thing”), “Ordnung ist das halbe Leben" ("Order is the basis of life"). Thus, the language reflects the features of its carrier: pedantry, high efficiency, skepticism, accuracy and scrupulousness.
English ideomatics presents such qualities as prudence (“Safety first” - “Caution first thing”), restraint of speech, understatement (“A world to the wise” - “Word to the wise”), diversity and freedom of views (“Variety is the spice of life" - "Variety is the beauty of life" or "It takes all sorts to make the world" - "Diversity is needed to create the world").
The following holistic meanings prevail in the Russian language: sociability, hospitality, justice, carelessness, patriotism and a disdainful attitude towards laws and wealth. The following expressions serve as examples of this: “The hut is not red with corners, but red with pies”, “To each his own”, “The first pancake is lumpy”, “Where the court is, there is a lie”, “The law is like a web: a bumblebee will slip through, and a fly get bogged down”, “Where he was born, there he came in handy”, “Better a drop of intelligence than plenty of wealth”, “A rich man, like a horned bull”, “A rich devil shakes children”.
Proverbs and sayings are linguistic phenomena that depend primarily on the life path, history, economy, geographical and climatic features inherent in a certain people. They reflect the culture of the country, its values. Understanding proverbs can be considered one of the criteria for language proficiency, speech development.
However, not only vocabulary and phraseology reflect the national culture, but also other linguistic means, such as grammar. Let's take two personal pronouns - "you" and "you". In most countries, they are both used as address. However, in English there is only one form - "you" (this is both "you" and "you" at the same time). Grammar difference is reflected in the relationship between people. So, in Russian, the appeal to “You” means respect and reverence, emphasizes the formal distance in a relationship. And the appeal to “you” is more relaxed and can sometimes even be regarded as an insult. The choice of one form or another depends on various conditions: the degree of acquaintance with the addressee, formality - the informality of the communication environment, the nature of the relationship between the speakers and the status positions of the interlocutors. For example, “a Moscow State University student who came to study from India writes that she experienced a culture shock in Russia when she heard that children refer to their parents as “you”, since Indian culture accepts everyone who is older (including parents and closest relatives), call on "you".
In languages ​​that have two grammatical forms (“you” and “you”), the role of one or another address is very important. specific situation. “In Soviet times, the US National Security Agency spent a lot of money just to find out the individual weaknesses of the Politburo and the Soviet government. It was even important for them to know who was on “you” with whom, in what tone the instructions were given.
Once in the English language there was an appeal to "you" - "thou". It began to fall into disuse in the 16th century and was completely replaced by "you" in the early 18th century. It is still used where it is necessary to create the impression of archaism - in Bible translations, in stories about ancient history, in poetry. Today in English everyone says “you” to each other, thereby emphasizing that everyone is equal (subordinate and leader, professor and student, general and private). The distance in the relationship is reduced to a minimum.
The nature of the treatment of people communicating with each other affects the form of their behavior. The rich folk experience, the way of life of each nation is reflected in the language, speech behavior, forms of communication. In an identical situation of communication, the speech behavior of multilingual interlocutors is built and formalized by various language means. So, for example, in Russia they prefer to use the pronoun "we" instead of "I". It is typical for the Russian people to behave modestly, not to take responsibility and, as it were, to “shelter” themselves among other people. Even instead of the forms "you" or "you", the pronoun "we" can be used. So, for example, a doctor asks a patient: “How do we feel?”. But in America, the most popular pronoun is “I” (moreover, it is even always written with a capital letter). This affects the formation of a person's character. From childhood, he gets used to distinguish himself among others, to lead an independent and independent life, he takes on the action and is responsible for it. Each person is an individual, an individual.
Each language is nationally specific and reflects the originality of the national character of its owner. The fact that different languages differently divide nouns by gender, speaks of a more or less emotional attitude to nature, to the world around. This leaves an imprint on the perception of reality. For example, in Russian, anything can belong to the masculine or feminine gender. Even "it" has some emotional overtones. Take, for example, Russian songs or poems, where clouds and trees are personified and have a certain kind. A person sympathizes with a man - "curly oak" or a woman - "golden cloud". This speaks of sentimentality, sensuality and cordiality of the Russian character. In English, the gender is used only for people, everything else is "it" ("it"). For an English-speaking person, the category of the article is also important, as for a Russian-speaking person, the category of gender. What matters to English culture is whether it is one of many clouds (the indefinite article "a") or the definite cloud in question (the definite article "the"). All these differences indicate that the same objects real world perceived differently by different cultures.
The increased emotionality of Russian culture is also evidenced by the frequent use of the word "soul" in speech. For a Russian person, the “soul” is a reflection of the psychological processes that take place inside a person. In German, the word "soul" has a different meaning. For a German, "soul" is associated, rather, with a religious concept, it is something "divine".
The English-speaking people in the foreground is not the soul, but common sense. “A person whose behavior is contrary to the norms accepted in this society, in Russian is called “mentally ill”, and in English “a mentality-ill person” (“mentally ill”). In other words, when the soul hurts in Russians, the mind hurts in the representatives of the English-speaking world, and, of course, these words themselves form ideas about life among their speakers, although the latter do not realize this and do not notice. In Russian, there are many phraseological units with the word "soul", and it is extremely rare that this word is equivalently translated into English ("soul"), it is mainly replaced by "heart" (heart), "feel" (feelings), "mind" ("reason") or other phrases. For example, "my soul!" - “my dear”, “someone has a soul to plow” - “smb. is pen-hearted", "peace of mind" - "peace of mind", "someone's cats scratch their hearts" - "smb. feels uneasy, restless or depressed”, etc. The above material shows that the Western world is more rational and orderly, it obeys the mind, while the Russian person primarily singles out spirituality.
So, the language reflects the culture of the people, but in addition, it performs another very important function, it preserves the culture of the people, passes it on to future generations. “A striking example of how cultural information is stored in a language is the terms of university management. Both the Russian and English names of the higher positions of the university leadership - rector, dean - keep the memory of the fact that in many European countries education as a social institution originated in monasteries, and was originally purely ecclesiastical. (The dean is “the head of the faculty.” Probably through German Dekan from Latin Decanus, the original “rector of the cathedral chapter”, as well as senior over ten monks. Rector - for the first time in 1643. Through Polish. rektor from Latin rector "ruler, ruler". Rector - b. Applied to God as the ruler of the world, mankind, etc. (obsolete used in relation to God as the ruler of the world, mankind, etc.) ".
Of course, the language stores many words-concepts that reflect the history, culture, geography of the country. However, language is not static. It is a dynamic, constantly changing mechanism capable of continuous development. With changes in the way of life and mentality of society, the language also changes. The process of globalization, internationalization, development of technology and sciences leads to the emergence of new words and phrases. Language, like a mirror, reflects all social and cultural changes. So, for example, “quarks”, “blinds”, “Internet”, “hip-hop”, “atomic reactor”, “probability waves”, etc. appeared. At the same time, words like “vran” are falling out of use and becoming archaisms (“raven”), “vyya” (“neck”), “in vain” (“in vain, unnecessarily”), “shelom” (“helmet”). In our opinion, this is evidence of continuous speech changes in the field of communication.
However, despite the evolution of the language, people of different generations understand each other. This is due to the fact that “along with a rapidly changing layer of vocabulary, the language has a main vocabulary fund - the lexical “core” of the language, which has been preserved for centuries. This includes all root words. They are understandable to all native speakers of a given language, stylistically neutral, characterized by a high frequency of use and serve as a source for new formations. These are, for example, such words as “water”, “home”, “mother”, “work”, “ten”, “I”, “your”, etc. The main vocabulary fund also changes over time (for example, our ancestors did not say “plow the earth”, but “yell the earth”), but these changes are made very slowly.
So, the language reflects not just the surrounding world of a person (climate, history, feelings, living conditions, etc.), but also his national culture (through proverbs, sayings, words, phrases, fiction). Language is a condition, an instrument of storage, a part, a basis and a product of culture. Each culture has its own perception of the world. That is why the study of the cultural component of words is an important condition for successful interethnic communication.

According to F. Dostoevsky, "language is the people." The famous French writer A. Camus said: "My homeland is the French language."

Language is the main tool of knowledge and development of the external world. He also performs main means of human communication. Equally, language makes it possible to get to know other cultures.

Being inseparable from national cultures, languages ​​go with them through the same vicissitudes of fate. Therefore, starting from the New Age, as the world was redistributed into spheres of influence, many languages ​​of ethnic groups and peoples that fell into colonial and other dependence turned out to be more and more squeezed from the historical scene.

Nowadays similar situation became even more complex. If in the past the problem of survival concerned mainly the languages ​​of dependent and lagging behind in their development countries and peoples, now it also affects the developed European countries. This is caused by the growing expansion of the English (American) language, which is increasingly becoming a universal means of communication. For this reason, mixed, hybrid languages ​​​​are emerging, an example of which is the so-called "franglet" or "franglish", which is a bizarre mixture of French and English.

In this case, of course, not only the language suffers, but the entire national culture, which in its own country becomes secondary, secondary. What happens is what Western theorists call "folklorization" European cultures, when they begin to take the place of folklore, move into the category of local exotics. In a particularly acute and painful situation, he is experiencing France, which for three centuries - from the middle of the XVII to the middle of the XX century. - was rightfully considered the first cultural power, and its language occupied a special, privileged place. However, by the middle of our century, the position of the French language and culture is deteriorating significantly. In opposition to this, an international francophonie movement is emerging, the main goal of which is the protection, preservation and dissemination of the French language and culture.

In the history of Western Europe, French turned out to be the third language that managed to become the universal language of international communication. Before him, only Greek and Latin achieved such status. Approximately in the X century. French in its meaning begins to become more and more equal to Latin. Starting from the 17th century. it spreads all over the world, and with it the French culture, whose influence in the XVIII century. reaches unprecedented strength. The entire enlightened elite of Europe and America, including Russia, speaks and reads French. For secular ladies, knowledge of the French language and playing the harpsichord are considered mandatory in all countries.

The expression "French Europe", put into circulation by the Italian diplomat Caraccioli, is quickly becoming generally accepted. Period from 1889 to 1914 is considered the golden age of the expansion of French culture to all countries and continents. Paris becomes the capital of world art. Many creators accept the well-known formula, according to which every artist has two homelands: one is his own, and the second is Paris.

However, in the XX century. fortune turns away from the French language. Already in 1918, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, it loses its monopoly of being the only language of international diplomacy. Even more serious losses were caused by the unfavorable outcome of the Second World War for France. Started in the late 1950s the process of disintegration of the colonial system exacerbated the situation. as many former French colonies were abandoning the French language.

The French language gave way to English (American) in its privileged place. It is under such conditions that francophonie. It currently spans over 50 countries and has adherents on all five continents. Although its whole purpose is the protection, preservation and prosperity of the French language and culture, it does not claim to restore their former priority. In equal measure, she does not dispute the established primacy of the English language, but opposes its complete domination, against the displacement of other languages ​​by it. Francophonie stands for the preservation and development of all languages ​​and cultures, for their fruitful coexistence and mutual enrichment.

However, the languages ​​of small ethnic groups and peoples are objectively in an even more difficult position. For them, no longer bilingualism, but rather multilingualism becomes the only way out of the emerging modern world linguistic situation.

Exploring the meaning of language in culture

Each local is formed in specific historical and natural conditions, will create its own picture of the world, its own image of a person and its own language of communication. Each culture has its own language system, with the help of which its speakers communicate with each other, but this is not the only purpose and role of language in culture. Outside of language, culture is simply impossible, since language forms this foundation, this internal basis. Through language, people transmit and fix symbols, norms, customs, transmit information, scientific knowledge and patterns of behavior, beliefs, ideas, feelings, values, attitudes. This is how socialization occurs, which is expressed in the assimilation of cultural norms and the development of social roles, without which a person cannot live in society. Thanks to language, coherence, harmony and stability are achieved in society.

The role of language in the processes of human communication has been the subject of scientific analysis since the beginning of the New Age. It was studied by D. Vico, I. Herder, W. Humboldt and others, thus laying the foundations of linguistics. Today language is also studied by psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. Great success in the study of language and speech communication was brought by the 20th century, when scientists connected language and culture.

The pioneers in the study of the relationship between language and culture were the American cultural anthropologist F. Boas and the British social anthropologist B. Malinovsky. Boas pointed out this connection as early as 1911, illustrating it by comparing two cultures through their vocabulary. So, for most North Americans, snow is just a weather phenomenon and in their lexicon only two words denote this concept: “snow” (snow) and “slush” (slush), and in the Eskimo language there are more than 20 words that describe snow in different states . From this it is clear what is important in each of these cultures.

A significant contribution to understanding the relationship between language and culture was made by the famous linguistic hypothesis Sapir-Whorf, according to which language is not just a tool for reproducing thoughts, it itself forms our thoughts, moreover, we see the world the way we speak. To come to this idea, scientists analyzed not the composition of different languages, but their structures (European languages ​​and the Hopi language). For example, it was found that in the Hopi language there is no division into past, present and future tenses; and the English sentence "He stayed for ten days" in the Hopi language corresponds to the sentence "He stayed until the eleventh day." Using examples of this type, Whorf explains the relationship between culture and language.

The significance of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis should not be exaggerated: in the final analysis, the content of a person's thoughts and his ideas is determined by their subject. A person is able to live in the real world precisely because life experience forces him to correct errors of perception and thinking when they conflict. Therefore, culture lives and develops in a “language shell”, and not a “shell” dictates the content of culture. But one should not underestimate the role of the connection between language, thought and culture. It is the language that serves as the basis of the picture of the world that develops in every person and puts in order a lot of objects and phenomena observed in the world around. Any object or phenomenon is accessible to a person only when they have a name. Otherwise, they simply do not exist for us. Having given them a name, a person includes a new concept in the grid of concepts that exists in his mind, in other words, he introduces a new element into the existing picture of the world. We can say that language is not only a means of communication or a stimulus of emotions. Each language not only reflects the world, but builds an ideal world in the mind of a person, constructs reality. Therefore, language and worldview are inextricably linked.

In cultural literature language meaning most commonly rated as:

• a mirror of culture, which reflects not only the real, surrounding world, but also the mentality of the people, their national character, traditions, customs, morality, the system of norms and values, the picture of the world;
• a pantry, a piggy bank of culture, since all the knowledge, skills, material and spiritual values ​​accumulated by the people are stored in its language system - folklore, books, in oral and written speech;
• the bearer of culture, because it is with the help of language that it will be passed on from generation to generation. Children in the process of culture, mastering their native language, along with it master the generalized experience of previous generations;
• an instrument of culture that forms the personality of a person who, through language, perceives the mentality, traditions and customs of his people, as well as a specific cultural image of the world.

In addition, language:

• facilitates the adaptation of a person in environmental conditions;
• helps to correctly evaluate objects, phenomena and their correlation, helps to identify objects of the surrounding world, their classification and ordering of information about it;
• contributes to the organization and coordination of human activity.

Culture is transmitted through language, the ability to which distinguishes man from all other creatures. Thanks to language, culture is possible as the accumulation and accumulation of knowledge, as well as their transfer from the past to the future. Therefore, a person, unlike animals, does not start anew his development in each next generation. If he did not possess any skills and abilities, his behavior would be regulated by instincts, and he himself would practically not stand out from the environment of other animals. It can be argued that language is both a product of culture, and its important component, and a condition for its existence.

It also means that between the language and the real world there is a person - a native speaker of the language and culture. It is he who realizes and perceives the world through the senses, creates on this basis his ideas about the world. They, in turn, are rationally comprehended in concepts, judgments and conclusions that can be transferred to other people. Therefore, thinking stands between the real world and language.

The word reflects not the object or phenomenon of the surrounding world itself, but how a person sees it, through the prism of the picture of the world that exists in his mind and which is determined by his culture. The consciousness of each person is formed both under the influence of his individual experience, and as a result, during which he masters the experience of previous generations. We can say that language is not a mirror that accurately reflects everything around, but a prism through which one looks at the world and which is different in every culture. Language, thinking and culture are so closely interconnected that they practically form a single whole and cannot function without each other.

The path from the real world to the concept and the expression of this concept in the word is different for different peoples, being determined by natural, climatic conditions, as well as the social environment. Due to these circumstances, each nation has its own history, its own cultural and linguistic picture of the world. At the same time, the cultural picture of the world is always richer than the linguistic one. But it is in language that the cultural picture of the world is realized, verbalized, stored and transmitted from generation to generation.

In this process, words are not just the names of objects and phenomena, but a fragment of reality, passed through the prism of the cultural picture of the world and due to this, it has acquired specific features inherent in this people. Therefore, where a Russian person sees two colors - blue and blue, an Englishman sees only one color - blue, although both look at the same part of the spectrum, i.e. language imposes a certain vision of the world on a person. One and the same fragment of reality, one and the same concept has different forms of linguistic expression in different languages. Therefore, when studying a foreign language, the words of this language, the student gets acquainted with an element of someone else's picture of the world and tries to combine it with his own picture of the world, given by his native language. This is one of the main difficulties in learning a foreign language.

Language practice shows that the language is not a mechanical appendage of any culture, since in this case the potential of the language would be limited to only one culture and the language could not be used in intercultural communication. In fact, one of the leading properties of the language is its universality, which allows a person to use the language as a means of communication in all potentially possible situations of communication, including in relation to other cultures.

Most of the problems arise when translating information from one language to another. Obviously, an absolutely accurate translation is impossible because of the different pictures of the world created by different languages. The most frequent case of linguistic inconsistency is the absence of an exact equivalent for the expression of a particular concept, and even the absence of the concept itself. This is due to the fact that the concepts or objects denoted by such terms are unique to a given culture, are absent in other cultures and, therefore, do not have terms to express them. So, in the Russian language there are no concepts of “ale” or “whiskey”, which means that there are no corresponding words in the Russian language. At the same time, there are no words for pancakes, borscht, vodka, etc. in English. If necessary, such concepts are expressed using borrowings. There are not very many nolexical borrowings in the lexicon of any language (usually no more than 6-7%).

Perhaps the most difficult situations in intercultural communication are situations when the same concept is expressed in different ways - redundantly or insufficiently - in different languages ​​(remember our example of color in Russian and English). The problem is that the meaning of a word is not limited to just one lexical concept (word denotation), but largely depends on its lexical and phraseological compatibility and connotation - the cultural representation of the people about certain objects and phenomena of reality. A complete coincidence of the named aspects of the word is practically impossible, and therefore it is impossible to translate words only with the help of a dictionary, which gives a long list of possible meanings of the translated word. When studying a foreign language and using it in communication, one should memorize and use words not separately, according to their meanings, but in natural, most stable combinations inherent in this language.

For example, "victory" can only be "winned", "role" - "play", "meaning" - "have". Russian "strong tea" in English will be "strong tea" (strong tea), and "strong rain" - "heavy rain" (heavy rain). These examples of lexico-phraseological compatibility of words, natural and familiar in the native language, will be incomprehensible to a foreigner (if he translates them using a dictionary).

In addition, there is a problem of inconsistency between the cultural ideas of different peoples about certain objects and phenomena of reality, which are indicated by the equivalent words of these languages ​​(connotation). For example, the phrase "green eyes" in Russian is very poetic, suggestive of magical eyes. But his own phrase in English (green eyes) serves as a figurative synonym for feelings of envy and jealousy, which W. Shakespeare called the "green-eyed monster" in the tragedy "Othello".

The word as a unit of language is correlated with the designated object or phenomenon of the real world. However, in different cultures, this correspondence may be different, since these objects or phenomena themselves, and cultural ideas about them, may be different. For example, English term"house" is different from the Russian concept of "house". For us, home means a place of residence, a place of work, any building and institution. For an Englishman, the concept of "house" means only a building or structure, and the hearth is conveyed by the word "home". This means that in Russian the concept of "house" is wider than the concept of "house" in English.

Currently, the generally accepted point of view is that in the culture and language of each people there are both universal and national components. Universal values, equally realized by all people in the world or representatives of individual cultures, create the basis for intercultural communication, without them intercultural understanding would be impossible in principle. At the same time, in any culture there are specific cultural meanings fixed in language, moral norms, beliefs, behavior patterns, etc. The connection between language, thinking and culture demonstrated above is part of the developed in the 20th century. semiotic approach to culture, considering culture as a set of signs and texts.

In history and modern linguistics, the problem of the connection between language and culture, the doctrine of language as a form of culture, stands out. Culture is a set of achievements of human society in industrial, social and spiritual life; distinguish between material and spiritual culture. More often the term "culture" refers to the spiritual life of the people: they speak of ancient culture, bourgeois culture, socialist culture, etc. An individual person differently represents the culture of his people; it manifests itself in the culture of work and life, the culture of behavior, the culture of speech.

Language is associated primarily with spiritual culture - with the artistic and scientific life of society, with philosophy and other forms of social superstructure. Moreover, the language itself is part of the spiritual culture of the people. Words with a cultural-historical component of meaning in modern Russian are, for example, such as collective farm, subbotnik, officer, pancakes, kvass, verst, serf, landowner, voucher, roaming etc.

Language is more directly connected with folklore and literature than other forms of social consciousness. When people talk about language as a form of national culture, they mean, first of all, fiction. However, language is also connected with other forms of social consciousness, it is their body, verbal expression.

The language as a form of national culture reflects the international and the national, the national and the class. The leading role in the preservation and multiplication of the achievements of Russian culture is played by the culture of the Russian people - in itself, and also as a model for the development of the culture of all the peoples of our country. Unfortunately, the work of modern media today most often does not have a progressive impact on the development literary languages, languages ​​of fiction of large and small peoples of Russia, since destructive tendencies prevail in this work.

The languages ​​of different peoples of the world are in different conditions of development. This inevitably leads to differences in the rate of development and in the results that depend on these rates. So, it is quite obvious that the languages ​​of the peoples that were crumpled (crumpled) and choked (and choked), in the words of Lenin, by capitalism, cannot develop many layers and “fields” of their vocabulary - both because of the lack of writing, and because for the inability to freely develop science and culture, and because of the obstacles in creating their own economy. Many of the so-called small peoples of tsarist Russia found themselves in such a state at one time, and many peoples of Africa are in this state as well. In the languages ​​of these peoples, in essence, there is no scientific terminology of their own, there was and is not a lexical and phraseological layer that reflects the development of industry, science, etc. This put and puts such languages ​​in an unequal position with the developed languages ​​of the countries of the West and the East - such as English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, etc.

But the enrichment of the vocabulary cannot but affect such aspects of the language as word formation, syntax, lexical semantics. The rapid growth of individual sections of the vocabulary leads to the activation of certain models and types of word formation, enriches them with new vocabulary units, and strengthens their position in the word-formation system of the language. Thus, in the history of the Russian language, the enrichment of terminological vocabulary, in connection with the development of science, technology, production and management, which has been going on for many decades in the 19th–20th centuries, has activated the models and methods of word formation necessary for such vocabulary, in particular those that create verbal names with abstract suffixes.

In languages ​​that have the necessary conditions for their development, individual layers and strata of vocabulary and phraseology are enriched and changed in an unequal way. Moreover, those of them that are actively enriched in one era can slow down development in another. In short, in the development of vocabulary and phraseology of any language, a kind of law of unevenness operates, changing the degree and direction of changes in particular lexico-phraseological subsystems within the general lexical-phraseological system, and the operation of this law is guided by the changes that occur in the life of society.

So, for example, the word genocide, often heard in the Russian language of the socialist period (in relation to Cambodia, for example), has completely ceased to be used in modern Russian media, although phenomena of this kind have not ceased to exist.