LINGUA-PHILOSOPHICAL PERCEPTIONS OF A LINGUISTIC SIGN, SIGNIFICATION, MEANING AND THE LINGUISTIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24234/scientific.v1i43.12Keywords:
sign, signification, meaning, linguistic picture of the world, extra-linguistic reality, intensional, extensional meaning, denotation, connotation, invariant, adjacent picture of the worldAbstract
The article discusses the questions raised in correlation with the reflection of the linguistic picture of the world and still causing philosophical concerns: What is the ratio? Is it “complicity” that exists between a word and its meaning? What is their “degree of independence”? Does the word help to form thoughts or meaning? Which of them prevails? Are there other significant components in forming the linguistic picture of the world? In the context of these issues, the provisions of the world’s leading lingua-philosophical streams in different periods of history regarding the complementary role of verbal sign, meaning and sense in the process of creating the linguistic picture of the world are presented. If the meaning is constant in all languages and the word is a carrier of certain information, what is the nature of invariants in the formation of the meaning of the word given for the same concept in different languages, associated with worldview of this linguistic community? Maybe this difference is connected with the reality of modelling the world.
However, the conceptualization of the world through the language, sign is universal and nationwide, while the peripheral ones are linguistic and national, still remains pendent in linguistic semantics.
References
Abramyan L. A. (1965). Gnoseologicheskie problemy teorii znakov (Gnoseological problems of the theory of signs), Erevan: AN ACCR.
Abramyan, L. A. (2001). O filosofskih problemah znakovoj teorii yazyka. (On the philosophical problems of the sign theory of language). Բանբեր Երևանի Համալսարանի, 3(105), 37–45.
Atayan E. (1981). Vnutrennee obrazovanie i vneshnee otnoshenie yazykovogo mira. (Internal education and external attitude of the linguistic world). Erevan: EGU:
Bart, R. (1989). Semiotika. Poetika. (Semiotics. Poetics). Moskva: Progress.
Brutyan G. (1972). Filosofiya i yazyk. (Philosophy and language). Erevan. Armeniya:
Bulich, S. K. (1890). Upanishady․ (Upanishads). Enciklopedicheskij slovar' Brokgauza i Efrona. SPb.
Gegel' V. (1977). Enciklopediya filosovskih nauk (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences), Vol. t. 3,. Moskva: Mysl'.
Gumbol'dt, V. F. o. n. (1985). YAzyk i filosofiya kul'tury (Language and philosophy of culture). Moskva: Progress.
Krushevskij, N. V. (1993). Ocherk nauki o yazyke. (Essay on the science of language). Kazan': RGAU.
Losev, A. F. (1962). Znak. Simvol. Mif. (Sign. Symbol. Myth). Moskva: MGU.
SHaff, A. (1963). Vvedenie v semantiku. (Introduction to semantics). Moskva: Inost. lit.
Stepanov, YU. S. (1975). Osnovy obshchego yazykoznaniya. (Fundamentals of general linguistics). Moskva: Prosveshchenie.
Ter-Minasova, S. G. (2000). YAzyk i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikaciya. (Language and intercultural communication). Moskva: Slovo.
Whorf, B. L. (1950). An American Indian Model of the Universe. (An American Indian Model of the Universe). International Journal of American Linguistics, 16(2). 67-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/464066
Zvegincev, V. A. (1962). Ocherki po obshchemu yazykoznaniyu. (Essays on general linguistics). Moskva: MGU.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Scientific bulletin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
