In recent decades, linguists have moved from the study of language as a selfcontained system of units to the study of its interaction with the consciousness and thinking of a linguistic personality. In this regard, reconstruction and orientation in the linguistic picture of the world of other people is a necessary fundamental basis for cognitive, linguo-cultural and linguistic research proper, based on the language of this people, which is not native to the researcher. In view of the above, the relevance of the study is due to the interest in studying the phenomenon of the interaction of language and culture as a way to preserve national identity in the era of globalization and the problems of a linguistic personality. Cultural, scientific and economic contacts between countries that have increased in our time contribute to the fact that the themes of "Linguistics and Culture", "Linguistic Personality", "Linguistic Ideology", "Linguistic Culture", and "National Character" become a priority in linguistics, which applies to multinational English material is especially relevant. The purpose of the work is to search and determine the factors that form the world language picture of the and conditional education cultural dominants in the language, by identifying and analyzing culturally meaningful vocabulary of the world linguistic picture.

Geographical migration, intercultural and inter-civilizational interactions are not the only phenomena of the last decade of the XX century. The search for knowledge and the spread of the teachings of Allah (Christianity, Islam or Buddhism) and the search for livelihoods are among the reasons that trade and migration inevitably lead people to interact with one another. Wars and political arrogance, aimed at expanding the borders of the empire, and the constant attempt to rule the world are another factor in the reorganization of power to create global alliances. Given this, we can say that globalization is not a new phenomenon. After the Industrial Revolution and the rise of world capitalism, with the advent of lighter and faster communications, transport and other infrastructure, relations between the peoples of the world, cultural dialogue, interaction have grown and become more and more new every year. began to happen. To get an idea of the main features of modernization, it is necessary to refer to the experience of industrial societies in Europe and North America. Historical, scientific and technological progress has played a key role in the transformation of traditional European feudal society into a modern capitalist society. As a result of this progress, developing on the basis of pragmatism, the relations between new social classes, individuals and groups were reorganized, which underwent significant changes.

The other side of the alternative of “objectivism or subjectivism (anti-substantialism”), can appropriately resolve the problem of the essence of freedom. Hegel wrote: “No idea can be said with such full right that it is indefinite, ambiguous, accessible to the greatest misunderstandings and therefore is actually subject to them, as about the idea of freedom, and none of them is usually spoken of with such a small degree of understanding of it. Since the free spirit is a real spirit, to the extent that the misunderstandings associated with it have enormous practical consequences...” (Hegel, 1977: 471) Thus, even the idealist Hegel admits that the problem of freedom has theoretical and particular practical significance. One can agree with I. Kant, G. Hegel, and N. Berdyaev, and many other philosophers that freedom exists only in the world of human reality, that is, in culture and society. In nature, both living and nonliving, it is not freedom that occurs but a necessity dialectically associated with chance and possibility. As Hegel rightly pointed out, “Nature ... manifests in its present being not freedom, but necessity and chance” (Hegel, 1975: 695). This statement certainly needs to be concretized. Freedom cannot coincide with necessity, but it cannot entirely resist it. Freedom that is not based on any form of necessity, as Hegel also showed, is not freedom. It is arbitrariness. Naked arbitrariness, according to him, is will in the form of chance (Hegel, 1974). One should bear in mind that the differences between inanimate (physical and chemical reality) and living (biological reality) nature, and in the latter – between the levels of its organization – are qualitative and even essential.