NOTION OF WORLD MODEL

The notion of “World Model” is widely used by representatives of different sciences: by philosophers, psychologists, gnosiologists, culturologists, and linguists. Being engaged into the widening circle of the fields of scientific knowledge, the "World model" concept gains co-definitions, such as "science-natural", "historical", "physical", "biological", and "linguistic". But all the same it remains the sort of metaphor, because different scientists fill it with different contents. Hereafter, we shall refer to this notion as to scientific term without any quotation marks world model, trying to concretize this notion in the frames of Linguistics.

In nowadays Linguistics different research workers fill the notion of world model with different content. There exists a wide range of approaches to the definition of this concept. Nevertheless, in all cases of its usage world model as a linguistic notion seems to be properly arranged systematization of the language semantic content. Every national language fulfills two main functions: communicative and nominative ones. As a matter of fact, the last one implies the function of recording and keeping in language lexical and idiomatic staff the whole variety of concepts and ideas about the world, worked out by certain national mentality. So the universal (global) knowledge about the world fixed in language patterns is the result of the efforts of a collective mind. But one can speak about different kinds of a human consciousness: the individual mind of a person, the collective everyday mentality of a nation, the scientific mentality. That's why it is possible to speak about a large number of world models, at least about three of them: scientific world model, world model of national language, world model of a person. Each type of mentality records in language matrices all the results of world comprehension. In linguistic literature the notion of "scientific world model" is usually not being discussed. It appears to be the obvious objective constant in traditional two-member opposition: scientific world model-language world model. Both of the models find their reflection in language of science and in standard national language correspondingly.

Linguists are fully absorbed by analysis of national world model. Meanwhile, the scientific world model is learnt only in the aspect of language it uses for the embodiment of its notions, but the conceptual status of the scientific language remains not elucidated at all. Nevertheless, the adjoining to Linguistics sciences (philosophy for example) pays a lot of attention to the clearing up of the scientific knowledge status.

Many outstanding scientists (A. Einstein, V. Vernadskiy, M. Plank, etc.) have been taking great interest in conceptual meaning of the scientific knowledge, of how this knowledge arranges into a global structure. For example, A. Einstein wrote about human's longing to create the clear and simple model of the world so as to break away from the world of sensations, trying at the same time to substitute this world for the newly created model. According to A. Einstein, that's what artists, poets, philosophers, naturalists do each one in his own manner. Exactly this model becomes the center of human's spiritual life, giving to the man a feeling of confidence and certitude. This definition contains no attempt to separate the scientific world model from presentation of the world by non-scientific consciousness. It is only said, that man tries to replace the reality by some created model, which finds various incarnations in the forms of scientific theories, classifications, pieces of art. This A. Einstein's statement belongs to those numerous interpretations of the scientific world model, which underline only the most common features of this notion. World model is defined here in rather uncertain, approximate way. From definitions of such a sort one can only figure out, that the world models are simplified substitution of the real world by the invented scheme or image of the objective reality.

M. Plank shows more concreteness in defining world model and scientific world model. World model formation goes, according to his opinion, through two stages: the first stage implies subjective sensual perception of the world; at the second stage the "diverse subjective variety" is replaced by the objective order, by universal knowledge about the world. According to M. Plank, people's sensations, provoked by the same subjects, differ, though the image of the world appears to be invariable. M. Plank previews, that the scientific world model will be feeble and dull in comparison with original world model. And it's of no wonder, because the scientific world model is a model of exact science. Such understanding of these notions excludes from the contents of the world model and the scientific world model all things linked with man and society, because the social sphere has never been the object of the exact sciences. Including in the scientific world model of everything, concerned with man and society, makes it universal.

That's why, to the thought of philosophers, in scientific world model must be realized V. Vernadskiy's idea about the integration process in the development of science: separate natural and historical phenomena must merge into a single whole, creating the complete model of the Universe.

M. Heidegger exposes the following understanding of relationship between a man and the world model:

1. man represents the world as a model;

2. man understands the world as a model;

3. the world turns into a model;

4. man conquers the world as a model.

M. Heidegger makes an important conclusion: man represents for himself the world model, composes it and just from this moment his activity starts. For this author the notion of a world model is inseparably connected with the subject of historical process, i.e. with individual, who perceives and changes the world.

For Heidegger the problem of the world model formation is closely connected with a world outlook, because if "the world becomes a model, the man's attitude is understood as an outlook." In Heidegger's interpretation the world model is a kind of representation of the "essence", and the outlook is treated as man's attitude to the "essence." Heidegger doesn't acknowledge two separate world models for nature and history: he combines them into the single one. There is no contradiction between Plank's and Heidegger's points of view. Heidegger's approach adds a lot to Plank's version. For Heidegger the world model appears to be not only a natural category, but also a social one, depending on a man, who perceives and changes the world. To put it briefly, Heidegger's world model comprises the world of nature and the history of society.

The world model definitions examined above belong to "non-strict" ones. They were used by famous naturalists and philosophers of the past. But todays' scientists mostly use the exact definitions.

In nowadays philosophy the question about the world model status seems to be rather complicated. One can point out several directions in definition of the scientific world model. Here they are in brief:

1. Scientific World Model /SWM/ as a part of philosophical knowledge;

2. SWM as a component of scientific outlook;

3. SWM as a form of systematization of scientific knowledge; all concrete sciences taken as a whole;

4. SWM as a research program.

For the purposes of linguistic research the third definition appears to be the most available. A. Kravets also maintains this point of view. In his interpretation the third definition of SWM gains the principal position among the others. Summarizing all existing opinions on the status of SWM, Kravets gives the following notions of SWM:

1. SWM as "ontological part of philosophy."

2. SWM as "integrated elements of today's science (general theories, concepts, ideas)."

3. SWM as "totality of stereotypes of scientific thinking: paradigms, research programs, methodological regulations."

As we see in given above definitions, the notion of SWM gets extremely wide filling. It includes not only the whole system of the scientific knowledge, but also the cognitive process itself in the frames of this or that world outlook.

Generally speaking, "scientific world model" /SWM/ may be characterized as a way of simulating reality, which is based on the separate scientific disciplines. Embracing all branches of knowledge about the world, man and society, it is characterized by universality. It follows that, SWM must use special system of terminology, quite different from logical languages of various disciplines and theories. The most essential features /distinctive signs/ of scientific world model could be formulated in the following statements:

SWM constantly changes in time. It is determined by continuous development of science. The collective scientific knowledge about the world constantly increases, some postulates are revised or rejected and a new knowledge appears. These constant changes evoke the appearance of new notions; the old ones are being corrected. In accordance with this process new terms come to light, when traditional ones are being filled with new content. SWM has a dynamic character. It permanently strives for the accurate reflection of the real world. If SWM stops changing it might mean the end of the scientific progress, reaching the tops in knowledge about the world. SWM will always remain "less" than the objective world, because it could never become identical with the last. Otherwise, it would signify the complete knowledge of everything, of all space-time world continuity.

SWM is common for all language communities, because the scientific knowledge is free of any "language subjectivism", it doesn't depend on any language peculiarities of this or that language community. Being objective, the scientific knowledge doesn't take into consideration national mentality, traditions, moral priorities of the peoples, and their national culture as a whole. Being invariable in content for all peoples, SWM gets its national form of expression through national terminologies in every national language.

"National language arrangement" of SWM never touches its content, but adapts the universal knowledge to the needs of certain language community. SWM obtains its "national language clothing" only in the case, if certain ethnic community has the experience of heaping, developing and transferring of the scientific knowledge, in other words, if it has proper scientific traditions. If such traditions are absent, the invariable content of SWM finds its presentation in two ways:

1. through "language clothing" of the language mostly used in this or that field of knowledge;

2. through "language clothing" of that national language, which performs the function of mediation, while transferring the scientific knowledge to the certain ethnic collective, not having any scientific schools in any branch of knowledge and experiencing as a result of it a strong cultural and, correspondingly, language influence of the other nation.

The national language arrangement of SWM might be full or fragmentary, it might be even absent at all. That depends on several factors. The first is what language and when has started the initial accumulation of knowledge and formulation of the basic notions. The second is determined by the intensity of development of the certain field of knowledge by scientists-representatives of this or that language community. The full version of SWM, arranged in national language forms, exists only in the case, if the bearers of that language constantly carry out total scientific researches, touching all spheres of knowledge.

Both SWM and LWMs reflect national mentalities; give necessary basis for investigations of how this or that nation thinks. But it is important to emphasize, that these two models are not identical. SWM suggests the objective model of the world, but is not related to any language. SWM conveys the up-to-date knowledge of the society about the objective world; it proves to be the fruit of the cognitive activities of humankind.

On the contrary, LWM is always subjective. It conveys the results of the initial comprehension of the world by this or that ethnic community. In the process of language acquisition children first get acquainted with LWM: the scientific knowledge about the world comes later, when a person grows older. People are able to perceive only some fragments of SWM, because nobody's mind could keep SWM as a whole. Thus, SWM appears to be the kind of global storeroom for the scientific knowledge. In everyday life people use so-called naive notions.

The objective scientific knowledge, existing in the form of scientific terms, does not destroy the naïve initial vision of the world, which is embodied in LWM. They are two parallel worlds. Both scientific terms and "naïve" words-notions have their own spheres of usage, though one can't deny their mutual influence. Both models change in time, but LWM changes much slower, than SWM: the kernel of LWM remains practically invariable.

Summing up, we can state, that scientific and language world models are produced by various kinds of mentalities of different language communities at different stages of historical development; they are carrying out different functions. SWM is being created and used by a narrow circle of people-by scientists, who constantly widen it with new elements of knowledge. The collective scientific consciousness investigates the objective world, at the same time SWM is permanently improving and growing richer.

On the contrary, all changes, taking place in LWM, touch only its outlying areas: it is stable on the whole. Otherwise, LWM wouldn't be able to fulfill its main function: to keep and reproduce through times the simplified classification of the objective world, ensuring in this way the succession in verbal thinking of this or that collective of language bearers. Having the same object to describe-the real world, they reflect it quite differently: SWM embraces all aspects of the objective world; LWM covers only some parts of the real world, because language consciousness brings to life large amounts of mythical objects, subjective characteristics, which do not exist in the real world. The relationship between SWM and LWM doesn't suppose the correspondence between them. The last doesn't try to attain the first: it has its own laws of development. LWM gets its specific structure in every language, but that is the object of special study. SWM appears to be very helpful for LWM investigation being a good background for manifestation of any LWM peculiarities.