Culture and Linguistics. Relationships

PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne CULTURE AND LINGUISTICS. RELATIONSHIPS. Gulsanam To'lanboyeva, Fergona State University, teacher Sabohatxon Yusupova, Fergona State University head teacher Dilshoda Mirzayeva, Fergona State University PhD Annotation Culture and linguistics are, now considered as the main sources of the subject of Linguaculturology which has been appeared in the crossway of above. Currently, in the world of linguists Linguaculturology is one the most debatable and increasingly popular topics since most foreign scholars possess their own perspectives to realize the contact of language and culture and comprehend the core meaning of them. In this article, the views about this field and contact are expressed by several representatives. Key words: linguaculturoloy, language, culture, relation, language contact, cultural linguistics, cultural schema, cultural category, cultural metaphor Аннотация Культура и лингвистика в настоящее время рассматриваются как основные источники предмета лингвокультурологии, который появился на перекрестке вышеизложенного. В настоящее время в мире лингвистов лингвокультурология является одной из наиболее дискуссионных и все более популярных тем, поскольку большинство зарубежных ученых обладают собственными взглядами на контакт языка и культуры и постигают их основной смысл. В этой статье мнения об этой области и контакте высказаны несколькими представителями. This article points to contribute to academic endeavors to clarify the claims made by the early proponents of phonetic relativity. It moreover presents an account of the as of late developed area of Social Phonetics and diagrams how the scope of this multidisciplinary range of research contrasts from that of considers devoted to phonetic relativity. For case, while linguistic relativity has been seen as displaying a ‘hypothesis’ or a ‘theory complex’ regarding the relationship between thought and dialect, Social Phonetics offers a theoretical 82 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne and explanatory system that centers on looking at highlights of dialect that encode conceptualisations established within the social encounters of speakers. The basic premise fundamental the approach of Social Etymology is that certain highlights of human languages are settled in in such social conceptualisations as social mappings, cultural categories, and social allegories. Introduction The idea that the words your language gives you determine and restrict what you can imagine is known as linguistic relativity (Leavitt, 2015, p. 19; Wolff and Holmes, 2011). This firm belief in the connection between language and mind has generated a lot of theoretical discussion and empirical study over the past 60 years. There is debate over whether or not the linguistic relativity proponents, in particular Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, held such a firm belief in the impact of language on mind. Leavitt, for instance, points out that none of the actual proponents of linguistic relativity made this claim; rather, they insisted that no language places restrictions on what can be conceptualized, all the while demonstrating the seductive ability of well-established linguistic patterns to provide clear-cut mental pathways. (Leavitt, 2015, p. 19) In spite of this, Leavitt (2015, p. 25) acknowledges that "[b]oth Whorf and Sapir indulged in some terminology that seems highly deterministic, and it is these parts that are the most widely referenced." In this essay, I'll look at these texts and try to clarify the kinds of statements they give rise to. After that, I'll describe how Cultural Linguistics differs from Linguistic Relativity. If the reader has a fundamental understanding of the nature of Culture Linguistics from the start, this debate will be easier to follow. Therefore, I'll start by outlining the history of Cultural Linguistics and explaining and illustrating some of its core concepts. Cultural linguistics Exploring the connection between language and cultural conceptualizations is the focus of the multidisciplinary field of cultural linguistics ((Sharifian, 2011, 2014, 2015) ). Cultural linguistics focuses in particular on the characteristics of human 83 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne languages that encode conceptualizations of the human experience that are produced culturally. In order to better understand the cultural conceptualizations that underlie the usage of human languages, cultural linguistics provides both a theoretical framework and an analytical framework. To construct its theoretical foundation, Cultural Linguistics has taken from a number of other disciplines and sub disciplines. The idea of "cultural cognition" in particular has allowed for an integrated understanding of the ideas of "cognition" and "culture" as they relate to language ( Sharifian, 2008, 2011). It's one concept. The access to and internalization of cultural cognition may vary and differ among many speakers. Additionally, cultural cognition is dynamic because it is continually being debated and reargued between generations as well as through interactions with other linguistic groups. The essentialized idea of "culture" that is frequently connected with linguistic relativity is quite dissimilar from this understanding of cultural cognition. It's one concept. The access to and internalization of cultural cognition may vary and differ among many speakers. Additionally, cultural cognition is dynamic because it is continually being debated and reargued between generations as well as through interactions with other linguistic groups. Comparing this perspective of cultural cognition to the essentialized idea of "culture" that is frequently connected with linguistic relativity. There are some overlaps between the study of cultural cognition and many branches of cognitive sciences. For instance, complex science researchers—often working under the umbrella of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)—have been attempting to explain how interactions between components, or agents, result in the collective behaviors of a system or group (e.g., Holland, 1995; Waldrop, 1992). Similar to how language and culture interact with one another across time and geography, cultural linguistics studies. The core of cultural cognition is the realization of cultural conceptualizations in language. Regarding cultural cognition, language has a dual function. On the one hand, linguistic exchanges are essential for the growth of cultural cognition because they give speakers a place to create and collaborate on meanings related to their 84 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne experiences. However, a lot of language use and structure features are influenced by and frequently reflect cultural cognition. Consequently, the study of language itself is crucial to our comprehension of cultural cognition. The cultural cognition that has predominated at various times over the history of a speech group has influenced several facets of language. In other words, these features may have an impact on linguistic practice in the future. In this respect, language serves as a memory bank and a flexible medium for the (re-)transmission of cultural cognition, The speakers' contextual resources are just one of many variables that influence how meaning is constructed during communicative exchanges. However, some of the meaning-making process depends on the conceptualizations that, for individual speakers, moment-by-moment, organize meaning and that those speakers frequently presume are shared. In turn, conceptual processes such as a) schematization, or the abstraction of conceptual schemas from experience, b) categorization, or the assignment of experiences of various kinds to our pre-established cognitive categories, and c) conceptual mapping, or the mapping between various conceptual domains, are influenced by and dependent on linguistic interactions. Language relativity Franz Uri Boas laid the groundwork for what would later be referred to as "linguistic relativity," and his pupils Sapir and Whorf later built on it (Leavitt, 2015). As different writings by these scholars seem to reflect slightly different viewpoints in relation to the precise nature of the relationship between language and culture, discussions of linguistic relativity and in particular the views of Boas, Sapir, and Whorf are frequently discussed in reference to specific publications. The theories and writings of these academics that have been most frequently referenced as supplying the tenets of linguistic relativity will be thoroughly examined in the sections that follow. The linguistic relativity idea has a problem since it has a rigid and essentialized concept of "culture." It is based on this premise that it attempts to build a theory that clarifies the connection between language, culture, and mind. In contrast to linguistic relativity, which asserts a "theory," "theory complex," (Lee, 85 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne 1996) or "hypothesis" about the connection between language and mind, cultural linguistics gives a theoretical framework and an analytical framework. As was already mentioned, Cultural Linguistics uses analytical tools like "cultural schema," "cultural category," and "cultural metaphor" while expanding on the idea of "cultural cognition," which goes beyond "between the ear" cognitive processing (Frank, 2015) to explore a level of cognition that emerges from interactions between the members of a speech community across time and space. Cultural linguistics serves as a theoretical framework and also offers a thorough explanation of the connection between cultural cognition, language, and conceptualizations. Contrary to some considerations of linguistic relativity, Cultural Linguistics focuses on examining cultural conceptualizations rather than the general concept of "culture." Cultural linguistics rejects the oversimplified idea that one can determine a speech community's culture, worldview, and thought patterns by examining the linguistic characteristics of the language they use, a notion that some associate with linguistic relativity. As was previously indicated, many linguistic traits serve as "archives" of conceptualizations that may have once been "active" in the "collective cultural cognition" of the relevant speech community. It is not always the case that the inclusion of these concepts in the speech of their speakers indicates that these concepts are actively used in the speakers' system of cultural conceptualizations. Cultural linguistics, on the other hand, provides more dynamic interpretations of language and cultural cognition by utilizing conceptual tools from other fields, such as distributed cognition and complexity science, to avoid the "culture" problem. As a result, cultural linguistics sees language, cultural conceptualizations, and cultural cognition as being heterogeneously dispersed throughout the minds of people who speak a certain language. Differences in the extent to which speakers draw on a given cultural schema are frequently revealed through linguistic exchanges between speakers from the same speech community. Such patterns of unevenly dispersed cultural schemas frequently offer an explanatory mechanism, for instance, for what 86 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne one interlocutor perceives as an unpleasant verbal action while the other does not ( Sharifian and Tayebi, in press). References 1. Atkinson, D., 2015. Writing across cultures: ‘culture’ in second language writing studies. In: Sharifian, F. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 417–430. 2. Everett, C., 2013. Linguistic Relativity: Evidence across Languages and Cognitive Domains. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin and Boston. 3. Frank, R.M., 2015. A future agenda for research on language and culture. In: Sharifian, F. (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. Routledge,London and New York, pp. 493–512 4. Holland, J.H., 1995. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 5. Lee, P., 1996. The Whorf Theory Complex: a Critical Reconstruction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. 6. Sapir, E., 1912. Language and environment. Am. Anthropol. 14 (2), 226–242. 7. Sharifian, F., 2005. Cultural conceptualisations in English words: a study of Aboriginal children in Perth. Lang. Educ. 19 (1), 74–88. 8. Sharifian, F., 2008. Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation, and language. In: Frank, R.M., Dirven, R., Ziemke, T., Bernárdez, E. (Eds.), 9. Sharifian, F., Cultural Linguistics and linguistic relativity, Language Sciences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.06.002 10.Mirzayeva, D., & Ismoilova, D. (2022). FITONIMIK KOMPONENTLI INGLIZ BIRLIKLARINING LEKSIK-SEMANTIK TAHLILI. Science and innovation, 1(B6), 925-929. 11.Numanjanovna, K. T., & Ikromjonovna, D. M. (2022). Semantic peculiarities of conjunctions in English language. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE & INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH ISSN: 2277-3630 Impact factor: 7.429, 11(10), 5-9. 87 PROBLEMS AND SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS 2022 Australia, Melbourne 12.Teshaboyeva, K., & Mirzayeva, D. (2022). MAIN LINGUISTIC AND STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF CONJUNCTIONS IN MODERN ENGLISH. Science and innovation, 1(B6), 505-509. 13.Zakirovich, G. B. (2022). Service Parts of Speech as an Important Component of Advertising Text in Russian and Uzbek Languages (By the Material of Advertising in the Sphere of Medicine). European Multidisciplinary Journal of Modern Science, 3, 1-7. 14.Zakirovich, G. B. (2022). DISCOURSE ABOUT THE PECULIARITIES OF THE THEME OF MALE GENDER IN ADVERTISING TEXTS IN RUSSIAN AND UZBEK (ON THE MATERIAL OF MEDICAL VOCABULARY). EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MODERN MEDICINE AND PRACTICE, 2(2), 4-8. 15.Zakirovich, G. B. (2022). Service Parts of Speech as an Important Component of Advertising Text in Russian and Uzbek Languages (By the Material of Advertising in the Sphere of Medicine). European Multidisciplinary Journal of Modern Science, 3, 1-7. 16.Zakirovich, G. B. (2022). DISCOURSE ABOUT THE PECULIARITIES OF THE THEME OF MALE GENDER IN ADVERTISING TEXTS IN RUSSIAN AND UZBEK (ON THE MATERIAL OF MEDICAL VOCABULARY). EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MODERN MEDICINE AND PRACTICE, 2(2), 4-8. 17.Kakharova, S. (2022). Speech as a Tool of Pedagogical Activity of the Teachers. American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research, 3(11), 61-64. 18.Салаева, М. (2009). Периодизация истории узбекской педагогики как педагогическая исследовательская задача. Современные гуманитарные исследования, (6), 164-165. 19.Salaev, M. S., & Khaydarov, M. E. (2020). Improvement of theoretical and methodological bases of periodization of the history of uzbek pedagogy. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(9), 479-488. 88