One of the actual issues in the contemporary linguistics is verbalization processes forming the linguistic model of the world. The model of the world is researched as the unity of language signs to represent the world architectonics specificity. According to the philosophical conceptualization of the cultural categories the language world model becomes the intercultural communication base.
The research of the intercultural communication aspects is a way to the understanding among peoples. As a consequence such researches are the way to cross-cultural dialogues. Having verbalized the cultural specificity the language world view has a narrative effect, while the primary world model has explanatory power, but, according to N.F. Alefirenko “In both cases, the unit of explanation and description is the concept <...> as an operational unit of mentality, which is denoted by the word, phrase or phraseology <...>, and as the base element performs the model in world structure” [2, p. 25].
The cultural relativity of language world view is realized in the form variability and values system categorization, due to the fact that “the language and culture are closely connected by some intermediate education, which is ideally implemented in the language of the meaning, <...> providing the ontological unity of language and culture” [9, p. 54].
The meaning represents the “specific character of life and culture in the social and national people identity, which can be described in the text” [12, p. 34]. Following I.R. Galperin, “text theory has two research ways: firstly, forming of the text grammar rules to model any text; secondly, forming of the general text theory by the textual structure studying to identify the style regularity of speech acts to discover categorical characters of any text” [4, p. 8].
According to N.A. Panasenko “the author has encoded the information and sent it to the reader. This information is transformed by system of images, characters, plot, which is encoded by language means and stylistic devices (lexical and grammatical expression)” [11, p. 99]. Text can be interpreted as the text world model to project the reality and unreality. “Literary text as the people being reconstruction format is the complex research construct” [Ogneva 2014].
We consider the literary text as a form of literary world view, which is formed according to the influence of complex cognitive processes, including space conceptualization into the conceptual sphere “forming a space literary world view as an integral component world view” [7, p. 228].
Literary world view is actualized in the literary text, which is a unit of literary concepts into the conceptual sphere. Literary concepts are defined as component of literary conceptual sphere, including those mental signs and events that are kept by the people historical memory. In the author`s mind literary concepts are the cognitive-pragmatic significants for the plot development to create the cognitive textual aura.
It is obvious that at the present time there is a need to study the space world parameters not so much based on the lexicographical data, but in the literary context too.
Contemporary linguistics has the wide methodological spectrum to research any issue. One of the actual issues is to identify the role of literary space units into the literary conceptual sphere architectonics in the character description. Thus, in spite of the wide spectrum linguistic researches there is not unique linguo-cognitive conception of text worlds models to interpret any textual segment, including the issue of literary space interpreting, but we need having such conception.
Methodological base of contemporary linguistics is the synergy of traditional and innovative methodologies as the base to research successfully any actual issues, which are studying by different scientific schools all over the world. Such methodological synergy is the base to precise some hypotheses and conceptions interpreting lingual worldview.
The cognitive-linguistic vector of researches has the large explanatory potential. This cognitive-linguistic is the base for new perspectives in the literary text studies as a means of fixation, storage, representation of knowledge and experience cultural- linguistic ethnic space.
The cultural-linguistic ethnic space specificity can be studied in the different books because “across the world there are too many places, where the reader had never been, and wouldn’t have been, so books, culture, knowledge are a great compensation in the case of limited space. Books can expand it” [6, p. 28].
The diversity of Russian space world view which represented on the literary pages, provides the extensive material for complex cognitive-hermeneutic text analysis of space models in order to identify the dynamics of this category verbalized environmental markers in the text, because according to Yu. Lotman, “the space text structure becomes a model of the universe space structure and the inner syntagmatics elements within the text becomes the language of space modeling <...>, moreover historical and national language space model becomes the organizing base for building a “world view” [8, p. 212–213].
The contemporary level of cognitive linguistics has the base to research the literary space descriptive parameters; determining the importance of people role in this space to describe the literary images specificity and the space parameters role identification in the literary text.
According to V.G. Gak “in the space literary field, can be identified a number of structures, such as:
1) the measurement space types: point – line – surface – volume;
2) the space architectonics, such as opposition: center / periphery; open / closed space;
3) the position of objects, their spatial correlation, i.e. relative space: near / far; right / left, etc.;
4) direction, orientation; coordinates;
5) measure of the length, distance, surface, volume, etc.;
6) the space perception: appearance, aspect angle, the point (of view), the approach” [3, p. 127]. The space literary field is the part of conceptual sphere.
The present level of cognitive linguistics, having fairly high methodological explanatory potential confronts researchers new evolutionary challenges, one of which is a modeling of literary conceptual sphere as “whole communicative unit which has components combined into a single hierarchically organized semantic structure of communicative intention by the author” [1, p. 303].
Nominative field of cognitive structures architectonics in the literary conceptual sphere is the result of mentioned space parameters verbalization in the text.
Our researches of literary space based on the fact that “national-cultural identity of the ethnic group of space thinking is manifested not only in a different conceptualization and categorization of the same phenomena of objective reality based on space representations, but in varying degrees of cognitive study of vertical and horizontal oriented subjects” [7, p. 428].
Literary text conceptual sphere is the important component of the national conceptual sphere structured as a unit of literary concepts, including those mental signs and events that preserve the historical memory of the people. These mental signs and are projected into the text as the author’s consciousness of cognitive- pragmatic significance to the development of the plot and create the text aura.
To identify the specificity of literary text conceptual sphere, first of all, we should research literary space descriptive parameters; secondly, determine the significance of the place and man role in literary space; finally, identify the role of space parameters in the text according to the fact that Russian space world view is characterized by the different interpretation of static and dynamic space localization.
Cognitive-discursive vector of modern linguistic studies, possessing extensive explanatory potential knowledge representation and experience cultural in the linguistic ethnic space due to the perception and interpretation of basic and peripheral components of literary conceptual sphere. It is evidently that, there is the great role of model interpreting as a cognitive process of text meaning identification to determine the cognitive and communicative space parameters.
The interpreting is based, firstly, on some level of knowledge standardization, secondly, on a certain level of mastery on the part of all participants in the communication as members of cultural, ethnic, territorial, social groups.
Consideration of the cognitive-discursive literary space of Russian classics as a fixed version of writers` concepts verbalization as the lingvo-culturology treasury of the Russians allows researching the ethno-cognitive text aura forming under the influence of linguistics and extra-linguistic factors.
Cognitive-hermeneutic analysis of space model in the national segment of literary conceptual sphere of novel “The Brothers Karamazov” by F.M. Dostoyevsky identified some linguistic structures specificity of concept “house”. It was identified that concept “house” includes some subconcepts, but we analyze only three of them, such as:
- subconcept “Mrs. Khokhlakova`s house”,
- subconcept “Karamazov`s house”,
- asubconcept “father Zosima’s cell”.
The nominative field researches identified the base semantic components, which is the unity of one-piece and multi-piece nominates.
One-piece nominate is identified as the linguistic structure consisting of a kernel and one or more associated components, describing any one parameter, such as space, time, quality, quantity, etc.
Multi-pieces nominate is identified as the linguistic structure, consisting of a kernel and a few associated words or phrases describing two or more parameters, such as spatial, temporal, qualitative, quantitative, etc.
Cognitive-discursive analysis of the conceptual sphere identified a large number of cognitive space models. First of all, it is interesting to consider the cognitive structures represent the space model of the subconcept “Mrs Khokhlakova`s house”.
We emphasized the fact that the concept of house is a collective image of housing and living conditions in Russia in comparing with English concept “house” and concept “home”.
It is a cultural marked subconcept due to the presence in its nominative field some significant numbers of ethnic marked segments. Concept is represented by a large number of cognitive models that are verbalized by different phrases: yard hut, house, small house, and so on.
The word house is consumed 313 times in the text in the description of the events, and location of the characters. For example, describing the property of Mrs. Khokhlakova F.M. Dostoevsky used the word house five times in two sentences of one context:
Soon he came to Madame Hohlakova house, to the stone house, in fact, two-story, beautiful, the best houses in our town. Although Mrs. Khokhlakova lived mostly in another province, where she had an estate, or in Moscow, where she had her own house, but in this town she had her own house, inherited from their fathers and grandfathers [5, p. 133].
Studies have identified the fact that the subconcept “Mrs Khokhlakova`s house” was represented mostly by static cognitive structures, i.e. by the frames.
We researched subconcept “Karamazov`s house”. This subconcept was represented by concept-element “the building facade” and by concept-element “the interior of building”.
We identified the nominative field of two concept-elements “the building facade” and “the interior of building” in the next context:
House of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov was not in the city center, but not quite to the edge. He was rather shabby, but had a pleasant facade: one-storey, with an attic, gray painted and a red iron lid. However, he could still stand for a long time, it was roomy and cozy. There were many different closets, different lumber rooms and unexpected ladders [5, p. 68].
Cognitive-hermeneutic analysis of the material shows that in the study space text segment, in particular, there is the opposition: center - periphery: proxeme the house was not in the city center - proxeme but not quite on the outskirts. This is localization in space text structure. In the house description there were identified linguistic markers of vertically horizontal space vectors. Thus, the vertical vector was verbalized by proxemes which are represented by phrases:
1) (house) with an attic;
2) unexpected ladders.
The horizontal space vector was verbalized by the phrases:
1) was roomy;
2) there are many different closets;
3) different lumber rooms.
The second research step of nominative field in the subconcept “Karamazov`s house” is the study of concept-element “the interior of building” which is verbalized in the following context:
He really found his father still at table. The table was also on the continual custom, served in the sitting-room, although there was in the house and a real dining-room. This sitting-room was the largest room in the house, with a sort of vintage claim furnished. The furniture was ancient, white, with a red grosgrain dilapidated upholstery.
In the spaces between the windows were inserted in the mirror elaborate antique carving frames, also white and gold. On the walls, covered with white paper and in many places already cracked wallpaper and adorned with two large portraits – one of the Prince, thirty years ago, the former governor-general of the local region, and some bishop, also long since dead. In the front corner was placed a few icons, before which at night lit the lamp ... not so much awe as to a room for the night was lit [5, p. 91].
Cognitive-hermeneutic analysis of the text identified, first of all, predominance of space localization markers:
1) (father) at table;
2) table served in the sitting-room;
3) in the spaces between (the windows);
4) on the walls;
5) in the front corner.
Secondly, the horizontal space vector nominate which was verbalized by phrase between the windows and the vertical space vector nominate which was verbalized by the word icons, which are located in the house, as a rule, a little higher than a man. Thirdly, the ethno-verbalizater of space localization – in the front corner, i.e. in the red corner (icon coner). Finally, the word lamp (before the icon).
Than, it was researched the subconcept “father Zosima’s cell” in the next context:
The whole cell was very narrow and some kind of sluggish. Things were rough and furniture, the poor and the most necessary only. Two pots of flowers on the window, and in the corner a lot of icons – one of them the Virgin, the huge size and write, painted perhaps even before the split. Before it there is the kindled lamp. Near there are two other icons in shining garments, then about them hand-made cherubs, porcelain eggs, a Catholic cross of ivory with hugs him Mater dolorosa and several foreign engravings from the great Italian artists of past centuries.
Beside these elegant and expensive engraving images splashed a few sheets of the most vulgar Russian lithographs of saints, martyrs, saints and so on. Sold for a penny at all fairs. There were several lithographic portraits of Russian contemporary and former bishops, but on the other walls [5, p. 28].
The cognitive-hermeneutic context analysis identified that nominative field of subconcept includes 13 nominates, which represent the large space of Elder Zosima`s cell and objects that are in this space. These nominates have different structures.
1) Two-pieces nominate proxeme cell was very narrow and some kind of sluggish consists of the kernel, i.e. the word cell. The component (cell) was very narrow represents the space category and the second represents component some kind of sluggish.
2) Three-pieces nominate-proxeme things were rough and furniture, the poor and the most necessary only consists of the kernel which is represented by the word things. The phrase
a) the words rough and poor represents a value parameter;
b) the phrase the most necessary only verbalizes the demand option.
3) One-piece nominate was represented by the proxeme two pots of flowers.
4) One-piece nominate was represented by the phrase a lot of icons. The word icons is cultureme.
5) Three-pieces nominate-proxemes one of them (icons) of the Virgin, the huge size and write, painted perhaps even before the split consists of the kernel which is represented by the phrase one of them the Virgin.
The phrase huge size verbalizes the size parameter. The word write represents the coulor. The phrase even before the split verbalizes the time parameter.
6) One-piece nominate was represented by the phrase heat lamps, the kernel is the word lamps.
7) Two-pieces nominate was represented by the phrase two other icons in shining garments. The kernel is the word icons. The word two verbalized the number, while the phrase in shining garments verbalizes the quality. The word garments is cultureme.
8) One-piece nominate is the phrase hand-made cherubs. The kernel is the word cherubs.
9) One-piece nominate porcelain eggs. The kernel is the word eggs.
10) Three-pieces nominate a Catholic cross of ivory with hugs him Mater dolorosa. The kernel is the word cross. The word ivory verbalizes quality. The phrase with hugs him Mater dolorosa verbalizes setting compositions. The word catholic verbalizes the religious specificity.
11) Five-pieces nominate several foreign engravings from the great Italian artists of past centuries - elegant and expensive engraving images. The double-kernel is engraving - engraving images. The word several verbalizes the number.
The word foreign verbalizes the setting place of manufacture. The phrase from the great Italian artists of past centuries represents the source. The word elegant verbalizes quality. The word expensive verbalizes the value parameter.
12) Five-pieces nominate splashed a few sheets of the most vulgar Russian lithographs of saints, martyrs, saints and so on. Sold for a penny at all fairs. The kernel is the phrase lithographs of saints, martyrs, saints and so on. The word splashed verbalizes a quality.
The word a few verbalizes quantity. The phrase the most vulgar verbalizes the authorship. The word Russian verbalizes ethno-parameter. The phrase; sold for a penny at all the fairs verbalizes the cost parameter.
13) Four-pieces nominate several lithographic portraits of Russian contemporary and former bishops, but on the other walls. The kernel is the word portraits. The word several verbalizes the number of the parameter. The word lithographic verbalizes quality parameter. The word Russian is ethno-parameter. The phrase current and former (bishops) is chroneme, because verbalizes a parameter of time.
All of these 13 nominates enlarge the cell space into horizontal and vertical vectors. Some nominate are point space markers.
To sum up, the research of the space segment in the literary conceptual sphere is the basic way to identify the specificity of space structural architectonics of the text. Space structural architectonics as the unit of proxemes is the complex construct.
The parameters of space contextual models represent the horizontal and the vertical oriented objects in the literary space of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” by F.M. Dostoyevsky.
The researches of three subconcepts, such as subconcept “Mrs. Khokhlakova`s house”, subconcept “Karamazov`s house”, and subconcept “father Zosima’s cell” identified the specificity of this space segment in the nominative field of the concept “house”. The researches of three subconcepts` nominative field identified the base semantic components, which is the unity of one-piece and multi-piece nominates.
It is evidently, that culturally marked proxemes have so great role in the space models` structures of three researched subconcepts into the identification of literary characters specificity.