LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

In recent decades, the works of Western culturologists A.J. Toynbee, T.Parsons, K.Levi-Strauss and Russian scientists D.S.Likhachev, L.N.Gumilev, V.V.Vorobyev, V.A.Maslova, E.I.Kukushkina, E.M.Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov, Yu.V.Rozhdestvensky, Kazakhstan linguists M. Kashgary, Ch.Valihanov, I.Altynsarin, E.N.Zhanpeisov, A.T.Kaydarov, D.Shokparov, Zh.A.Mankeeva gave a broad scientific understanding of culture and language. The prominent scholars of the XIX (W.von Humboldt, A.A.Potebnya) understood language as a spiritual force. Language is considered our environment, without which we cannot live. By W.von Humboldt, language is "world that lies between the world of external phenomena and the inner world of man"

S. Stepanov wrote that the term culture has two main meanings:

1) totality of the achievements of people in all spheres of life, not to consider separately, but together - in industrial, social, and spiritual spheres

2) high, up-to-date level of all human achievements.

Language is one of the components of culture, which is reflected through culture, but at the same time, language is an independent system.

Language - a fact of culture because:

1) it is an integral part of culture we inherit from our ancestors;

2) language - the main tool by to learn the culture;

3) language - the most important of all the phenomena of cultural order, because if we want to understand the essence of the culture - science, religion, literature, you should consider these phenomena as the codes formed in language, so the conceptual understanding of culture can only happen through natural language.

According to N.D.Arutiunova, "Language is developing system of discrete (articulate) sound marks, arisen spontaneously in human society and serving for the purposes of communication and to express the totality of knowledge and understanding about the world". According to E.Sapir, "language is a communicative process in its pure form in every society known to us." "Culture can be defined by what the society is doing and thinking. Language is also the way people think ".

The variety of approaches to understanding the culture offered by V.A.Maslova, extended and supplemented in the following classification.

1) The social approach.

The essence of the social approach is to consider culture separate from nature, from the biological and physiological background, not just relevant to an individual, but relevant to the group of people connected by communication. In this approach, the focus is on the fact that people are not born with a particular culture, but acquire it in the course of communication, on the basis of social activities (V.Osvalt)

2) The cognitive approach to understanding the culture focuses on culture as knowledge and learning. Culture is not a material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behavior or emotions. It is rather an organization of these things. Culture consists of its members willing to learn and get knowledge according to their abilities and level (V.Gudinaff).

3) The dialogic in which culture - a "dialogue of cultures" - a form of communication and interaction of its constituent parts. There are ethnic and national cultures created by individuals, people, and nations. The national cultures are divided into subcultures. This is the culture of certain social level and groups (subculture of the youth, criminals etc.). There is also meta-culture, which brings together different peoples, such as the Christian culture. All these cultures come together in dialogue. The more developed national culture, the more it tends to dialogue with other cultures (S.S. Averinsev, B.A.Uspensky).

4) Informational. The culture is presented as a system of creating, storing, using and transferring of information, it is - a system of symbols used by the society in which social information is encoded, i.e. the meaning and content invested by people themselves (Yu.M. Lotman). Hence, culture - is informational provision of society, social information, which is stored in a society with the help of sign systems.

5) The spiritual. Proponents of this approach define the culture as the spiritual life of society, as the flow of ideas and other products of the spiritual creativity. Spiritual existence of society and culture (L.Kertman).

6) The active approach, in which culture is understood as a peculiar way to meet the needs of a person, as a particular kind of activity. This approach has its origins in B.Malinovsky, and the Marxist theory of culture: culture as a way of human activity (Y.Sorokin, E.F.Tarasov).

7) Normative, where culture is - a set of rules and regulations governing the lives of people, a living program (V.N.Sagatovsky). These concepts also developed by Y.M. Lotman and B.A.Uspensky who understand culture as a system inherited collective memory, which is manifested in certain systems of prohibitions and regulations.

8) The typological (M.Mamadashvily, S.S.Averintsev). Meeting with other people, people tend to perceive their behavior from the perspective of their own culture, that is, as it were, "to measure them to your own background." For example, when Europeans who come into contact with the Japanese, Japanese speak with smile when they talk about the death of loved ones, which Europeans see as a sign of callousness and cruelty. From the standpoint of a Japanese culture - is exquisite politeness, the reluctance to disturb the other people with their problems.

9) The hermeneutic, which relates the culture as a variety of texts. Culture is a set of texts, to be exact - the mechanism that creates a set of texts (Y. M.Lotman). Texts - the essence of culture. They can be viewed as a repository of information that needs to be removed, and as a unique generated by originality of the author's personality masterpiece, which is valuable in itself. The disadvantage of this approach - the impossibility of a clear understanding of the text.

10) Descriptive, which lists the individual elements and expressions of culture - a custom, activities, values, ideals, etc., by this approach, culture is defined as a set of institutions and achievements, which differs us from the life of the animal-like ancestors (Z. Freud). The disadvantage of this approach - obviously an incomplete list of manifestations of culture.

11) The symbolic approach focuses on the use of symbols in the culture. Culture - a "symbolic universe" (Y. M.Lotman). Some of its elements, acquiring particular ethnic sense, become symbols of nations a white birch, cabbage, samovar, sandals, balalayka - for Russian, oatmeal and legends about ghosts in castles - for the English; spaghetti - for Italians, beer and sausage - for the Germans and etc.

12) Functional approach, which characterizes the culture through functions that it performs in society: information, adaptive, communicative, regulatory, normative, evaluative, integrative, socialization, etc. The disadvantage of this approach is the absence of common definitions and classification.

13) A system of values, in which culture is treated as a set of spiritual and material values created by people. Every person should aware of values, their classification, and typology, before create and understand them.

14) The semiotic approach to the definition of culture is based on understanding it, first of all, as a system of signs, representing the world, which can then be used as a means of communication. The culture is a set of symbols that embodies and represents the understanding, message, and knowledge of its nation.

As we can see, the above mentioned 14 approaches define the notion of culture to full extent. Language is a way of verbal culture existence, and at the same time the cultural-historical phenomenon, therefore language and culture is interconnected and intersected.

W.von Humboldt believed that language is universal in its core and is nationalistic in various forms of expression. He claimed that every single language is “the only product of linguistic consciousness of the nation ... and, therefore, the main questions about the origins of language and the inner life cannot be properly answered, not rising to the point of view of spiritual power and national identity”.

Basic concept of W.von Humboldt can be summarized as follows:

1) material and spiritual culture is embodied in the language;

2) every culture is national, its national character is expressed in language by means of a special reference of the world, every language has a specific to each language inner form;

3) The inner form - is an expression of "national spirit", its culture;

4) Language is a mediator between man and the world around him.

The concept of W.von Humboldt has original interpretation in the works of A.A. Potebnya, Sh.Bally, Zh.Vandries, Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, R.O.Yakobson and other researchers.

Speaking of the interaction of language and culture, one should point linguistic sciences dealing with these issues. They are Ethno-Linguistics, Lingua-countrystudy, and Linguaculturology.

Z.K.Sabitova believes that the commonality of these two phenomena (language and culture) is due to their nature (human nature), functions and conditions of origin. Language and culture are united in the genetic aspect (originated simultaneously), material (they have a semiotic character), and functional aspects.

According to V.N.Teliya:

1) Culture as well as language - a form of consciousness, reflecting the worldview of a person;

2) Language and culture exist in dialogue with each other;

3) The subject of culture and language - is always an individual or a society, a person or community;

4) Normative character - common feature for both the language and culture;

5) Historicism - one of the essential qualities of culture and language;

6) Language and culture characterized by antinomy "dynamics - statics".

The relationship between language and culture is often characterized by metaphors that emphasize the crucial role of language in describing culture: the language is the foundation of culture, building material, the demiurge - V.N.Toporov, D.B.Gudkov, instrument of culture, the reality of the spirit, the hypostasis, the storage of culture - W.von Humboldt, a cultural phenomenon, a manifestation, the face of culture - V.A.Maslova; a factor of development, the condition of the existence of culture - K.Levi-Strauss; guide to culture - E.Sapir etc.

Let us consider essence of the basic functions of language and culture.

1. Cognitive (epistemological) function of culture is manifested most in its implementations, such as science, scientific and technological progress. Cognition is carried out basically through language, through the language we understand the world and themselves, as the language calls and expresses knowledge and cognition. Studying the works of language, we master previous eras and cultures of other people (social and ethnic communities).

2. Informational function of culture is to record the results of material and spiritual activities of the people and transfer them in time and space, which in its turn ensures the continuity of generations and thus the development of human society. Whereas, the language - a repository of knowledge, the store of language texts and information about all the achievements of the human experience. At the same time, the language - it is a means of sharing experience, recorded in texts.

3. Semiotic function of culture is manifested in the fact that any product of culture can become a symbol, a sign of a particular national culture.

For example, шаңырақ - a symbol of the Kazakh people, күй,домбыра - a symbol of Kazakh folk music. Semiotic function of language is also based on the fact that language signs can symbolize various notions.

4. The communicative function of culture is based on the representativeness of the culture, it carries out the exchange of the benefits of culture between different human communities and individuals, making it possible to cross-cultural communication. The language is a means of exchange and cross-cultural communication.

5. Axiological (estimated) function of culture is specific in the sense that it is relative in content, since all ethnic groups and nations systems of values are different. Language is a means of realization of the axiological function of culture.

6. Regulatory (normative) function is based on the axiological. Some cultural researchers (the U.S., including Parsons) consider it basic, fundamental. It manifests itself at different levels of culture and has varying degrees of commitment. The regulatory function of culture supports the balance in society, conflict prevention, providing a normal existence in society.

The language is also characterized by the regulatory function, but it concerns the speech of a society which is graded from the rigid rules of spelling and Orphoepics to less rigid stylistic norms. Thus, the regulatory functions of the culture and language are interrelated.

7. Expressive and emotional function common to many species and varieties of culture: religious genres such as prayer, preaching, sacred texts, folklore texts. Sometimes this is called magic, because it acts as a spell, ritual dances, etc.

8. Integrative and differentiating function of culture is manifested in the fact that, on the one hand, culture is the basis for the differentiation of people according to their social, ethnic, age, territorial and other parameters (see, for example, the Kazakh culture, Russian culture, European culture, youth culture, elite culture, mass culture, etc.). This function is also typical to language, reflected in the form of the theory of national-linguistic world picture, the theory of translatability / translatability of vocabulary, phraseology, and the theory of bilingualism, etc.

9. Socializing, individualizing function of culture can make a transition from socialization to individualization. The function helps an individual to discover and develop their abilities and use them in the society.

The combination of group (national-social) and individual in the language, the transition from the first to the second and from the second to the first provides the formation of natural languages and, at the same time, the creation of individual languages as idiolects and even idiostyle that was the basis to the formation of the theory of linguistic identity.

The influence of language on thought and behavior can perhaps best be seen in the world of advertising. The culture - beliefs, attitudes, overt and covert aspirations, pragmatic designs and fantasies, actions and reactions - is studied by advertisers around the world to find the basis for the concepts and language that will inspire the people of any given locale to buy a product of one manufacturer rather than that of another. What sells in Chicago may also sell in Kyoto, but not through the same advertising. Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. When it is used in contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways.

To begin with, the words people utter refer to common experience. They express facts, ideas or events that are communicable because they refer to a stock of knowledge about the world that other people share. Words also reflect their authors' attitudes and beliefs, their point of view that are also those of others. In both cases, language expresses cultural reality.

But members of a community or social group do not only express experience; they also create experience through language. They give meaning to it through the medium they choose to communicate with one another, for example, speaking on the telephone or face-to-face, writing a letter or sending an e-mail message, reading the newspaper or interpreting a graph or a chart. The way in which people use the spoken, written, or visual medium itself creates meanings that are understandable to the group they belong to, for example, through a speaker's tone of voice, accent, conversational style, gestures and facial expressions. Through all its verbal and non-verbal aspects, language embodies cultural reality.

Finally, language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value. Speakers identify themselves and others through their use of language; they view their language as a symbol of their social identity. The prohibition of its use is often perceived by its speakers as a rejection of their social group and their culture. Thus we can say that language symbolizes cultural reality.

People who identify themselves as members of a social group (family, neighborhood, professional or ethnic affiliation, and nation) acquire common ways of viewing the world through their interactions with other members of the same group. These views are reinforced through institutions like the family, the school, the workplace, the church, the government, and other sites of socialization throughout their lives. Common attitudes, beliefs, and values are reflected in the way members of the group use language; for example, what they choose to say or not to say and how they say it. Thus, in addition to the notion of speech community composed of people who use the same linguistic code, we can speak of discourse communities to refer to the common ways in which members of a social group use language to meet their social needs. Not only the grammatical, lexical, and phonological features of their language (for example, teenage talk, professional jargon, political rhetoric) differentiate them from others, but also the topics they choose to talk about, the way they present information, the style with which they interact, in other words, their discourse accent. For instance, Americans have been socialized into responding 'Thank you' to any compliment, as if they were acknowledging a friendly gift: 'I like your sweater!''Oh, thank you!' The French, who tend to perceive such a compliment as an intrusion into their privacy, would rather downplay the compliment and minimize its value: 'Oh really? It's already quite old!' The reactions of both groups are based on the differing values given to compliments in both cultures, and on the differing degrees of embarrassment caused by personal comments. This is a view of culture that focuses on the ways of thinking, behaving, and valuing currently shared by members of the same discourse community.