Abstract:
A human being, as a biological species with language ability, and the environment are in constant interactions and function as a unity. Interactions determine human thinking and behavior as well as changes in the environment. However, the methodology of researching dynamic processes of cognition has not yet been developed, directions of its practical applications haven’t been clearly defined. The paper deals with the views of biologically oriented scientists on a triad MAN-LANGUAGE-ENVIRONMENT and lexical semantic analysis of the word environment in the Russian language. The received data is analyzed and generalized; its practical application is discussed. The key aspects of the environment related to human being/observer activity are the niche as perceptual medium of the observer, a human as biological-cultural being, language activity and signs determined by experience, a need as a specific state of the observer willing to act. The biocognitive approach to the investigation of environment allows us to identify interrelations among environment, language and a human being in theory and in practice. Having recognized the linguistic status of the concept environment, we will be able to expand the fund of knowledge about a human being and significantly advance in the development of the methodology of language as a biocognitive phenomenon.
Keywords: biologism, “human being-environment” unity, interactions, languaging, cognitive dynamics, lexical semantic analysis
For citation: Makarova E.A. Views on environment in biocognitive studies of language (Linguo-philosophical analysis). Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2020, no 4, pp. 116–125 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Elena A. Makarova
Irkutsk National Research Technical University
(Russian Federation, Irkutsk)
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3630-1588;
Researcher ID:T-7474-2017;
e-mail: helenmak@yandex.ru
References:
1. Kravchenko AV. Two views on the ecology of language and ecolinguistics. Ecology of language and communicative practice. 2014;2:90-99. (In Russ.).
2. Sinha C. Language and other artifacts: socio-cultural dynamics of niche construction. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01601/full. Accessed Oct. 20, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01601
3. Kobenko JuV. Language and environment: prospect of environmental approach to language studies. Tomsk: Tomsk Technical University, 2017. (In Russ.).
4. Haugen E. The Ecology of language. Essays by Einar Haugen. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972.
5. Shvec O. The role of language in structuring knowledge: Kand. Dis. Tver’; 2005: 173. (In Russ.). Available at: https://www.dissercat.com/content/rol-yazyka-v-strukturirovanii-znaniya. Accessed Oct. 20, 2020.
6. Maturana HR. The Biological Foundations of Self Consciousness and the Physical Domain of Existence. Collected papers in Beobachter: Konvergenz der Erkenntnistheorien? (2nd ed.). Munich; 1992:47-117.
7. Maturana U. Biology of cognition. Language and brain. Collected papers. M.: Progress; 1996: 95−142. (In Russ.).
8. Maturana HR. Autopoiesis, structural coupling and Cognition: a history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 2002;9(3/4):5-34.
9. Kull K. Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semiotics, 1999;124(1/4):385-414.
10. Sebeok T. Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994.
11. Zlatev J. «Meaning = life (+ culture): an outline of a unified biocultural theory of meaning». Language and cognition. Collected papers. Moscow: Gnozis; 2006:308-361. (In Russ.).
12. Cowley SJ. Distributed language and mind. Language science in the changing epistemological paradigm. Collected papers. Irkutsk: BNUEL Publishers; 2009:192-228. ( In Russ.).
13. Love N. Cognition and language myth. Language and cognition. Collected papers. Moscow: Gnozis; 2006:105-135. (In Russ.).
14. Cowley SJ. Distributed language. John Benjamins Publishing Co. 2011.
15. Cowley SJ. Changing the idea of language: Nigel Love’s perspective. Language sciences. Elsevier Ltd., 2016;61:43-55.
16. Steffensen SV. Distributed language and dialogism: notes on non-locality, sense-making and interactivity. Language sciences. 2015;50:105-119.
17. Steffensen SV., Kramsch C. The ecology of second language acquisition and socialization. Springer International Publishing AG 2017. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02327-4_2-1.
18. Boyko SA. Anglicisms in the modern Russian language: what is borrowed and why? Irkutsk State Economics Academy bulletin. 2012;2(82):232-235. (In Russ.).
19. Verkhoturova TL. The factor of an Observer in the scientific language. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State Linguistic University, 2008. (In Russ.).
20. Druzhinin AS., Karamalak OA. Language in bio-socio-cultural conception: lexical and grammar “levels”. Philological sciences in MGIMO. Linguistics and cross-cultural communication. 2017;12(4):5-14.(In Russ.).
21. Kravchenko AV. What is communication? Essay on biocognitive philosophy of language. Prjamaja i neprjamaja kommunikacija. Collected papers. Saratov: Colledge; 2003:7-39. (In Russ.).
22. Kravchenko AV. Human, language, environment. Mir v jazyke. Serija Jetnogermenevtika i jetnoritorika. 2005;11:36-51. (In Russ.).
23. Kravchenko AV. Cognitive horizon of linguistics. Irkutsk: BNUEL Publishers, 2008. (In Russ.).
24. Linell P. The written language bias in linguistics as a scientific field. Language science in the changing epistemological paradigm. Collected papers. Irkutsk: BNUEL Publishers; 2009:153-192. (In Russ.).
25. Linell P. The written language bias in Linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routltdge, 2005.
26. Map of words and expressions of the Russian Language Available at: https://kartaslov.ru/sochetaemost’-slova/sreda. Accessed Jul. 28, 2020. (In Russ.).
27. Keller RA. A theory of linguistic signs. Oxford UP, 1998.
28. Harris R. Rethinking Writing. London: Athlone Press, 2000.
29. Vehkavaara T. Extended concept of knowledge for evolutionary epistemology and for biosemiotics. Available at: http://www.uta.fi/~attove/vehka-f.htm Accessed Aug. 10, 2020.
30. Kravchenko AV. Sign, Meaning, Knowledge: An Essay in the Cognitive Philosophy of Language. Peter Lang Publishing, 2004.
31. Makarova EA. Types of knowledge defined from interrelation of the categories experience and knowledge (in the English language). Issues of cognitive linguistics, 2016;2:74-83. (In Russ.).
32. Leontev AN. Lectures on psychology. Moscow: KDU, 2005. (In Russ.).
33. Avdosenko EV., Panina TG. Edification as means of linguistic representation of experience ((based on the German language sources). Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Phylology, 2018;4:7-15. (In Russ.).
34. Samkova MA. The pragmatics of metaphor and metonymy in a media text. Ecology of language and communicative practice, 2019;4(2):99-111. (In Russ.).
35. Shvec NO. Live knowledge and modern teaching methods. Understanding and reflection in communication, culture and education. Collected papers. Tver: Tver State University, 2019:292:293. (In Russ.).