The methodology is being based on social historic, anthropical, individual, cultural changes. Modern methodology studies dynamics of cognitive problems, cultural historic issues of cognitive tools, changeability of categories and concepts, formation of new cognitive orientations. The task of modern methodology is clarification, formation and transformation of mechanisms which integrated in individual daily experience. So the relevant studies are aimed on anthropocentrism which means that the study of language and its functions closely connected with human nature and human is a center of existence. Making researches in the sphere of linguistics or literature and their functions in human life it is possible to find out such linguistic functions which have not been investigated before or it is necessary to continue the researches in this direction. Linguo-anthropocentrical approach which is used in this research defines language as cognitive source for human and human activity as the source for language and its functions studying. Introducing anthropocentrical approach in linguistics allowed investigating the language function in new level which made possible to connect language activity in its functioning with human activity in society.
The concept “world picture” was introduced in physics at the end of XIX century and at the beginning of XX century. G. Gerts was the first scholar who used it refer to physical world picture. He introduced the term as a combination of internal representations of objectives logically using which it is possible to get behavior characteristics about these objects. According to G. Gerts internal representations or symbols of objectives, created by researches, has to be such that the “logically necessary consequences of these representations in their turn were natural representations of these objects” [1, 152 p.]. Created representations should be logical and represent natural proportions of the objects including all details. According to G.Gerts the way our brain creates representations determines the ways of their representations. The scientist tried to characterize simple thing picture in sensible world and processes in it, including to this picture the main principles of mechanics using which it is possible to introduce total mechanics without references to experience. He considered if we interpret differently the mechanical principles depending on its basic statements, “we get different world pictures” [1, 154 p.]. M. Planck also used concept “world picture” introducing physical view of actual nature regularities. In his view the content of this representation, based on principals of energy conservation and transformation, as on increasing entropy principles, enriches releasing anthropomorphic elements during the physics development [2, 19 p.]. A. Einstein also used this term in his works.
Therefore, the first usage of this concept connected with scientific world picture. According to A.A. Melnikov “the status of this concept remains indefinite in the modern methodology and philosophy”. Determine concept “world picture” through scientific and general scientific point of view, it has several interpretations which locate between science and world view as well as between science and philosophy: world picture is observed as world view which include in itself type of social practice; world picture is a type of philosophical reflection (neonatural concept of scientific world picture); world picture is a type of scientific knowledge [3, 124 p.]. Then the term “world picture” started to use in culture and linguo-semiotic studies.
World viewing as a part of world picture was studied in cultural aspect. Firstly scientists investigated collective consciousness basing on materials of myths and folk literature through reconstruction of its structure. Scientists observed the term as primary and secondary modeling systems in semiotic direction of study. They considered the model in cybernetic meaning so the world was described as “passive automotive memory”. Then concept “world picture” changed under the influence of gnoseological and general scientific meaning to an image of modeling object. According to A. Gurevich “every civilization, social system could be characterized by the way how they interpret the world. Accepting the main conceptual and spiritual categories as universal, we meant the fact that they are natural for a person at any stage of his life but their meanings change during the time [4, 7 p.]. In recent years many scientists, who are making researches in this sphere, have come to conclusion that “world picture” of each ethnic group should be studied separately. Accepting the concept “world picture” as “world view” is the main factor for researching linguistic world picture and literal world picture. Generation of the concept is closely connected with language and determined by language. It is called as linguistic world picture which reflects national world picture and found in linguistic units of different levels. Taking into consideration definite world picture of individual we can say that it is based on conceptual world picture forming it in its turn as any human-being can understand the world and himself only through language. Language includes general and national social historic experience so we can say that enrichment happens in two directions: 1) life conditions and welfare determine people’s behavior and consciousness which reflect on language, especially in its grammar and semantics; 2) person understands the world through native language which determines his behavior and cognition [5, 204 p.].
It is necessary to note that the term “world picture” is metaphorical as “specific uniqueness of national language, which includes specific historic experience of definite nation, does not creates different world picture, it creates “national world picture” based on unique attitude to some things, events, processes showing uniqueness of specific national culture” [5, 204 p.]. E.D. Suleimenova emphasized “the linguistic world picture cannot be equated to world picture as we cannot equate language to cognition”. So the distinction of the world picture and the linguistic world picture is definite as the distinction between the terms: language and cognition. However linguistic world picture as a term unit originated due to interaction of reality and language (without cognition) [6, 89 p.]. Linguistic world picture includes specific language figures: culture-specific concepts, categorical division of the world – the composition of categories and paradigms, quantization of semantic continuum, standard type of estimation, etc. The world picture is expressed in two ways: on the one hand, by language units (grammatical categories, morphemes, stable word combinations, phrasemes), on the other – by the way of their formation, syntactic constructions”[5, 87 p.]. Each ethnos language describes the world by its own way of conceptualization which means that it creates its own world picture model. According to the Humboldt’s view, different languages are different worldviews and specificity of each particular language determines “linguistic consciousness of this nation” [7, 15 p.]. According to the functional aspect the concept “consciousness” can be divided into conceptual, linguistic and coordinative one” [8, 2 p.]. Linguists who study the problem of linguistic consciousness, national linguistic consciousness, operate with such terms as mentalistic language, mentality, cognition. The work of V. Humboldt, A. Potebni, I. Baudouin de Courtenay contributed to formation of these concepts which are closely connected to the concepts of world picture, linguistic world picture, literal world picture. Theorists of literature study literal semantic and literal figures in ethno-ethic features. Among recent researches it is necessary to mention: dissertation of Z.Gassanova “Caucasian mentality in the image of Russian literature of the nineteenth century”, T. Belyaeva “Poetics of symbolic images in Mari drama”, L.Cheltygmasheva “Ethno-poetic originality of Khakass prose of 1930-1990 period”, among domestic researches: monograph of A.Tumanova “Contaminated linguistic world picture in literal discourse of bilingual writer”, article of A.Karkanova “Reproduction of national world picture based on culture-specific concepts of the epic novel of M. Auezov “Abai way”. There are not so many works dedicated to literal and linguistic world picture. Mainly authors write about problematic of space and time. Theorists of literature noticed the novelty of usage the concepts “world picture” in philology: “New concepts of philology “world picture”, “worldview” connected with modern developments in the science, which proved the existence of different cosmological models of the Universe. “As each century creates its own model, so human-beings of XX century should imagine the universe representation to answer – what is world and what kind of place has an individual in it. Art could not reflect new world model” [9, 17 p.]. Works of R. Barthes, K.Levi, E.Volodina, S.Bocharova open the next page in the development of new approaches in development of integrative trends in science. Philosophical categories of space and time, reflected in literature, devolved on philological categories of cognition and understanding of reality. The methodological novelty brought by M.Bakhtin, determined the role of space and time in literature, became literal world picture. The scientist suggested “time-space is a formal literal category, which genre varieties determined by time-space and it contains all narrative knots” [10, 101 p.].
The research in theory and methodology of literal and linguistic world picture is in the infancy stage. Scientific philological tools have been enriched by the concepts “linguistic world picture”, “literal world picture”, “linguistic literal world picture”. Now there is an actual problem to distinguish these concepts in philology.
N. Goncharova, taking into account views of famous linguists, suggested: “linguistic world picture is a mental linguistic knowledge: information about surrounding reality created in individual or collective consciousness and is represented by language means” [11, 396 p.] .
It is worth to remind that the concepts “linguistic world picture” and “linguistic literal world picture” are not the same, they relate to each other as the general and the particular. Linguistic literal world picture means “syncretical knowledge which became the realization of literal images in speech and became cohesive, complex literal image created by the means of language. The main features of linguistic literal world picture are internationality, possibility to transform literal word and its synthetism, variety of meanings leading to unknowable linguistic literal world picture” [12, 6 p.]. There is no consensus in determination the concept “literal world picture”, the evidence of this fact is absence of the completed theory. Scientists agreed that it relates to the secondary systems as linguistic world picture and refers it to author individual world picture. Y. Salnikova tried to understand the structure and sense of literal work, its place in literal process: “we considered that the ratio between objective and subjective in the space-time structure of the text more clearly reflects the classification of P. Zobova and A. Mostepanenko [13, 21 p.], according which a literal work contains the following levels:
1. The real level: physical space and time, the literary text is an ordinary material object, a thing among other things.
2. Conceptual level: “model” reflection of reality, fable, objectified background of literal events. The conceptual space and time show the historic space and time in which actions happened in the book, not the time and space when the book was written.
3. The perceptual level is directly related to the formation of literal image. In this level the specific uniqueness of this literal text opens which differentiate it from others” [14, 28 p.].
There is variety of “world picture” definitions which connect language with literature but correctly relate the concept to the space-time continuum. “The problems of linguistic literal world picture only denoted and significant researches are needed in this sphere. Investigation of linguistic literal world picture is possible by means of coordinate systems though which person understands reality and built world view in cognitive space. They are called space-time categories” [12, 6 p.].
Thus, the space-time structure of literal text as a basis of literal and linguistic world picture is the link that merges conflicting scientific opinions. Plot is the link for literal world picture in literature science. Linguists are interested in phenomenological peculiarities of world picture and means of language representation, this approach cannot satisfy the theorists of literature, as it does not describe full scientific cognition of literal and linguistic world picture. The literal world picture is wider than any science or subject. It is imposed by inner properties of literature such as person and life reflections, variety of life stories and differences of human feelings. This no doubt that paradigm of literal text spreads from grammatical level to philosophically ontological reality. Modern philological science studies image content and language of literal text which are directed to development of special methods and scientific interpretations for meaning recognition of literal text. This fact made scientists research idea of identification meaning of literal word to “archetypes of the culture”, which was proposed in the Humboldt concept of literal text perception as system object characterized by specific features and regularities.
G.G. Shpet’s theory played great role in cognition and scientific description of the dialectic of creation, functioning and perception literal text. His famous essays on hermeneutics, “Phenomenon and meaning” (1914), “Aesthetic Fragments” (1922) are a major contribution to the development of literary hermeneutics. He observed “word” and “literature world” in the paradigm of microsystem and macrosystem relations. “Inner form”, being medullary element of poetic world structure, forms literal world picture. Main idea of the theory is that the scientist obtained word perception as a structure, which reflects emotionally sensitive and cognitive character. According to G. Shpet supposed that interpretation of image to cognition is a “total emancipation” of poetic form. Character created by literal word cannot be interpreted as “concept” or just like “representation”. So during reading process a reader understands character, concept and image of literal text through individual and collective comprehension by interpretation creative literal world picture [15, 68 p.]. Thus, reader and literal text each time interact with each other creating dialogue; this created relation is not regulated by the author’s idea. The idea of literature perception as an ability to self-regulation is the main feature of an open dissipative system. This idea is accepted as innovative point of view to the well-established physical nature regularities.
A Nobel laureate I. Prigogine developed the system theory in the sphere of anthropology and engineering science. The most important aspect in his research was the comparative investigation of open dissipative systems with closed-ordered systems, which have not communicative characteristics. The comparative analysis of these systems has revealed variability, instructiveness, self-regulation of open systems. The fundamental idea is that the “human systems are considered not in terms of equilibrium or as “mechanisms, but as the creative world with incomplete information and changing values, a world in which the future can be represented in many ways. The social problem of values in a wide range can link with the non-linearity. Values are codes that we use to keep the social system in some line of development, which is chosen by history. Value Systems always resist the destabilizing effects of the fluctuations that are generated by this social system, it gives the process the features of irreversibility and unpredictability “[16, 36 p.].
So the system theory foregrounds in perception, comprehension, understanding of a literary text. The theory of open systems is related to the category of fractals – a term introduced by B. Mendelbrot, a mathematician and the author of “The Fractal Geometry of Nature” [17, 15 р.]. Fractal derivates from the Latin word “fractus” and denotes – uneven, broken. B. Mendelbrot used the terms “fractals” and “fractal objects” talking about ability to “self-similarity” expressed in the invariance and “irregularities” meaning non-linearity.
Synergetic study jointed in itself traditional approaches of literature study and new concepts based on the system theory and fractal literature, it also jointed humanitarian and basic scientific knowledge. Conceptual paradigm of the synergetic is the meaning self-generation.
It is not sufficient to use traditional scientific approaches for understanding hidden dialectical relations. System-synergetic approach became effective for the detection of multi-piece structure of the text, the relationship of its elements, direct and figurative works bonds with reality, meaning polyphony of text’s verbal structure. It was restructured the traditional comprehension of gradation – author, text, reader. Subject, idea, author conception, characters system, structure, plot, reader’s perception are the elements of literal and linguistic world picture according to system-synergetic approach. These elements are universal and unique at the same time. Historical reality, life and spiritual experience of a text author and a reader, psychology of creativity, the psychology of perception in evaluating the text as an open system are important components in the typology of the functioning of literary text. The works of H. Haken [18], V.S. Stepin [19], E.N. Kniazeva, S.P. Kurdyumov [20], and others are important for development of the synergetic theory.
Academician V.S. Stepin studied the philosophy of science. In his monographs “Theoretical knowledge” he explained the properties of self-organization systems as “a process that leads to the formation of new structures” [21, 204 p.]. The combination of a systematic approach and the synergetic principles in the annex to the humanitarian knowledge, such as literature, gives new possibilities for understanding the plot and the meaning of the literal text.The text perception as the open self-organizing system changes the view on the relationship between the text and the reader, the author and the reader. “Non-equilibrium relations are “sine qua non” condition for self-organization, but self-organization, in its turn, changes the role and meaning of these relations” [22, 135 p.]. The history of literal compositions functioning has examples when a story is comprehended differently dependently on centuries. The books, which were read with great interest in one historical period, have become uninteresting in another period. But there examples of classic novels which are actual and interesting in each period by variedness of hidden meaning layers.
This factor depends on text autonomy from its author and reader’s activeness in meaning understanding. It is appropriate to address to the Einstein’s theory of relativity belong to time and space. New time and reality can cause new understanding of the meaning. Scientists V.G. Zinchenko, V.G. Zussman, Z.I. Kirnoze proposed the effectiveness of the system-synergetic approach in studying literary compositions as “an unstable system which are constantly in a state of transition from chaos to order and from order to chaos”. They associated quality of nonlinearity with meaning self-creation: “Synergetic approach allows us to investigate the semantic aspect of the “literature” system relationship with the system of numerous contexts and with reality. There are many works in philology titled “Art and synergy”, “text synergy” and others [23, 203-204 pp.]. Individual reader conception and linguistic world picture recreated by the author enter into complex relation determined by scheme of the system-synergetic method where the main triad is author, composition and reader. This triad is framed by traditions and reality. The direct and reverse associations between structure meanings play determinate role. Variety of structural elements is characterized by non-linearity and their openness that ultimately leads to the meaning self-creation of each individual reader.