Lingvist oxirgi shakl 1-son indd

CONTENTS OF THE ARTICLE
Culture has the ability, on the one hand, to transform and 
change, on the other hand, to be reproduced and preserved. In any 
case, it leads itself to transmission both synchronously and dia-
chronically.
Consequently, culture can also be considered as “a supra-in-
dividual mechanism for storing and transmitting certain messages 
(texts) and developing new ones” and can be understood as a space 
of some common memory, i.e. such a space, within which general 
texts, general phenomena, general meanings can be preserved, up-
dated and, in a certain sense, reproduced [Lotman 1992, 200-202]. 
Let remind that for A.N. Leontiev’s image of the world as a 
universal form of organizing knowledge of an individual is an inte-
grative reflection in the consciousness of the surrounding reality, 
the most important properties of which are orderliness and multi-
dimensionality, subjectivity, since it is formed in the process of accu-
mulating life experience, and at the same time, objectivity, since the 
correlation of individual activities in a single cultural environment 
causes the appearance of common components of consciousness. In 
addition, the objectivity of the image of the world is achieved by the 
fact that a person’s knowledge of reality is mediated by a system of 
meanings common for all members of the community, assimilated in 
the process of socialization [Leontiev 1983, 151-161].
The role of linguoculture in the linguistic studies
141

---

Linguistic culture is a culture embodied and fixed in the signs 
of a living language and manifested in linguistic processes, a cul-
ture revealed to us in language and through language. In a sense, 
linguoculture approaches the linguistic picture of the world, but 
these phenomena are ontologically different. If the linguistic picture 
of the world can be understood as a complexly organized seman-
tic space (similar ideas can be found in the works of Y.S. Stepanov 
and N. D. Arutyunova), to which are applicable, including proper lin-
guistic (primarily semantic) research methods, then linguoculture 
is a linguocognitive phenomenon, formed not by linguistic units, but 
primarily by images of consciousness in their verbal robes, which 
requires somewhat different methods of analysis. This is due to the 
fact that the focus of consideration in this case is not the signs of the 
language, external images, but images externalized in the signs of 
language. In other words, in this case, the signs of the language.
Linguocultural “semantics” are cultural meanings that are ex-
pressed through the signs of the language. Is it true that linguistic 
culture and linguistic consciousness are “equal” to the way we per-
ceive the world? 
First of all, linguistic consciousness encompasses a mean-
ing-mediated image of the entire world, whereas linguistic culture 
only encompasses the general elements that make up the “objective 
component” of an image. As it is known, the “objective component” 
of an image is always culturally marked and culture-dependent be-
cause it is predetermined by the environment in which the image of 
the world as such is “fused”.
It seems possible and quite legitimate to extrapolate the idea 
of W. von Humboldt about the “weaving” of a language by a person 
within himself and the “weaving” of himself into the language to cul-
ture and linguistic culture and include them in these acts of “weav-
ing”. Consequently, behind any manifestation of human life is the 
“language - culture – linguoculture”.
The dictionary of linguoculture is the language of cultural 
meanings and images. The dictionary of linguistic culture as a set of 
units determines the possibility and necessity of creating a dictio-
nary of linguistic culture as a systematic description of those, which 
involves the identification of a registry and lexicography, at least, of 
the main (basic) units of all subsystems of linguistic culture. Lexi-
cography of linguistic culture units involves an inventory of linguis-
tic units that have cultural-bearing information. Today it is possible 
with all responsibility to declare that within the framework of lin-
Umida DJALILOVA
142

---

guoculturology, the first dictionaries of linguoculture have already 
been created: “Russian cultural space. Linguistic and Cultural Dictio-
nary” (2004) and “Big Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Lan-
guage” (2006). Despite the fact that units of initially different nature 
are presented in these editions: proper linguistic meaning, cultural 
meanings, they are the first experience of lexicographic practice in 
the field of linguistic culture.
The grammar of linguistic culture is basic classes of units, 
their categories, system, structure, relationships and functioning. 
The grammar of linguistic culture requires the identification, de-
scription, structuring and systematization of the main categories, 
classes, types and types of units, their structure, relations between 
them (including the structure of these relations), as well as the rules 
for their functioning (more on this see, for example: [Krasnykh, 
2005: 10-24; 2008: 204-214]). Today it seems possible to propose 
its initial version and possible, already outlined ways of solving the 
relevant scientific problems. In order to identify the grammar of lin-
guistic culture, a number of hypotheses can be put forward:
1) the main hypothesis - the system of coordinates of lin-
guistic culture appears as a set of axes, set by (presumably four) in-
dependent subsystems that coexist within the framework of a giv-
en culture and are - due to the flexibility and transparency of the 
boundaries between them;
2) an additional hypothesis - linguistic culture can be de-
scribed in terms of the following subsystems: cognitive, metaphori-
cal, reference, symbolic - either fragmentarily or holistically;
3) particular hypotheses - the basic units of these subsystems 
are: a) mentefacts - a cognitive subsystem; b) basic metaphors - a 
metaphorical subsystem; c) meaningful “niches” of basic standards - 
a subsystem of standards; d) basic symbols - a symbolic subsystem.
So, the cognitive subsystem is formed by a system of mente-
facts, which includes four classes of phenomena identified to date, 
which are taxons of linguistic culture: knowledge, concepts, con-
cepts and representations.
According to research, “the very concept of intercultural com-
munication is based on an equal cultural interaction between repre-
sentatives of various linguistic and cultural communities, taking into 
account their originality and originality, which leads to the need to 
identify the universal based on a comparison of foreign and own cul-
tures. Modern teaching of a foreign language is impossible without 
instilling in students a foreign language culture. Most methodolo-
The role of linguoculture in the linguistic studies
143

---

gists focus on the current state of the theory and practice of teaching 
a foreign language with a pronounced communicative orientation, 
which contributes to the comprehensive development of person-
ality, the development of spiritual values of students. Intercultural 
communication training cannot exist without the inclusion of a lin-
guistic and regional aspect in the learning process” [Bakhronova at 
all, 2019].
Knowledge, following cognitive psychologists (see, for exam-
ple, [Richard, 1998]), is understood as a system of structured and 
hierarchized information units that are stored in long-term memory 
unchanged, while transformations and modifications of knowledge 
are possible, but require conscious efforts; knowledge is learned de-
void of emotiveness and appraisal. However, the configurations of 
the knowledge array are always culturally marked, and in addition, 
there are a number of units that turn out to be culturally significant: 
they may be relevant for one culture and be part of the core of the 
cognitive base of its representatives, and may not be relevant for an-
other culture and, therefore, be located on periphery of the cognitive 
base or absent altogether.