No abstract

No abstract

The article examines the relationship between linguistic and cultural reality within developing neo-Humboldtianism ideas, in particular, the authors analyze the work of L. Weisgerber “Native language and spirit formation” (1929). Speaking as a follower of the ideas of W. von Humboldt, the German researcher discusses the relationship between culture and language, which is realized through implementation of mental activity. In this regard, L. Weisgerber considers language thinking as a living language-making organism. Weisgerber L. notes that obvious (conceptual) and intuitive levels of birth meanings are implemented in language organism; in this way, establishing the connection between conscious and unconscious exercise of mental activity becomes possible. A higher level of understanding the reality associated with the discovery of cultural content is implemented in this synthesis. No one can speak a language just because of their own language personality, the researcher notes; on the contrary, this language proficiency grows on the basis of belonging to a language community, which forms the cultural content of language. Considering language as a cultural domain, L. Weisgerber evaluates its understanding as the development of internal content of culture, which leads to a homogeneous cognition using homogeneous forms, and thus – to agreement in thinking, which is most clearly expressed in the possibility of mutual understanding. However, L. Weisgerber thinks, that coordination between subjective activity and community should be carried out in two ways, taking into account the static and dynamic characteristics of language: on the one hand, this requires considering language within evaluating it as a sustainable form, and on the other hand, as an organismic form capable for development and constant updating. Native language for the researcher becomes an understanding of the “objective idea”, in relation to which the spiritual content of human existence environment is built.

The article considers issues of defining language temporality through content for communication between language and thinking in the world conceptualization regarding the ideas of time developing in culture. The author notes the role of the person in modeling language temporality based on which the general worldview reflecting existential understanding of culture is constructed. Moreover, the author underlines that consideration of language temporality is defined by specifics of time perception as the objected universal forming a conceptual basis of culture. Metaphorical ways of exteriorization of language temporality in perception of typical repeatability of an event row are revealed (B. L. Whorf). The author considers metaphorization of culture in implementing language temporality through the identification of time and human life. In addition, the author notes that integration of models between time and life is not always subjected to logical coordination and definition. Time as a natural process represents the movement caused by natural laws, which set the formalized principles of the consecutive changes, which are abstractly presented in the straight line (infinity). However, assessment and understanding of the movement direction is possible if the straight line becomes discrete, as only in this case it is possible to speak about the components of the whole pointing out its sense, that is possible to present in the form of the points located on the straight line. This discretization defines differences in understanding of time that is dictated by metaphorical sense of language temporality and culture, since a lack of opportunities for unambiguous interpretation of changes generate modifications of meanings which lie in the nature of defining time and its goal-setting