Principles Of Axiological Space Verbalization Within Precedential World

Abstract

The key concept symbolizing and introducing personal components into the consciousness of all members of the linguocultural community is the axiological sphere of utterance intensification. The constant rethinking of common cultural meanings within the framework of expressing the archetypal dichotomy “good – bad” is based on the possibility of interaction between the components of episodic and sociocultural memory in creating a common conceptual and valeur system. The precedential world of “The Great Patriotic War”, which is explored in this article on the basis of the methods of hermeneutic and noematic analysis, is the most representative and meaningful in the aspect of the sociocultural and historically determined components intensification. Defining the axiological space of the precedential world as the sphere of application of intentional reflection over the field of evaluation that change along with objective reality, the authors build the concept of an onto-epistemological contaminated sphere of knowing oneself and one’s place in this world. Reactivity and situationality in the category of assessing the phenomena of the precedential world verbalized in language can be realized in the mental space both on the basis of noematic (intuitive) and phenomenological (conscious) reflection, i.e. truly reflective comparative interaction. The desire of one or another author to objectify the background of the axiological space forms the basis of subjective assessment, while the potential degree of de-objectification of the same axiological component serves as the dominant for the objective place of this evaluative phenomenon in the conceptual and valeur system.

Keywords: Axiological space, conceptual system, literary text, objectification/de-objectification, precedential world

Introduction

Currently, in the context of the linguists’ closer attention to the verbal representation of the value-orientational components of sociocultural memory and the mechanisms of their creation, transformation and preservation, the problem of the hierarchical organization of psycho-mental reflexive space of conceptualization of stereotypical norm generation arouses the increasing interest. Taking into account that the precedential world “The Great Patriotic War” is the most representative and meaningful in the aspect of socio-cultural and historically determined components intensification, the literary texts of the authors who witnessed military events and participated in hostilities are the empirical material of this study.

Problem Statement

It should be emphasized that the assessment processes and their verbalization within the framework of objectifying the phenomena of the precedential world cannot come down to simplistic adherence to the value-orientational maxims of a particular society; it is necessary to realize the complexity of the process of intensification of the valeur and voluntary components in the presentation of personal and general cultural significant characteristics. This process should be understood much more broadly as a specific onto-gnoseological metaphysical basis of the necessary and sufficient reflexive efforts of both the initiator and recipient of the modification in the evaluative component, determined by the utmost goal being a single aesthetic and ethical interaction forming.

Research Questions

The primary issue to be investigated from the standpoint of the hermeneutic-noematic method is the problem of the interaction of individual and general linguocultural overtones when forming the space for evaluating both real and reflexive phenomena. The accompanying elements of analysing the subject-object asymmetry in the formation and development of the axiological space of the precedential world is overcoming the contradiction between the symbolic and figurative explication of valence and voluntativity, whose relation in various systems is determined by the direct dependence of the desirability on the object value in action.

Purpose of the Study

The dominant objective of the study is to identify and classify the basic principles of verbalizing the axiological spaces of the precedential world based on objectification in the literary text of the precedential phenomena of the Great Patriotic War in Russian linguistic culture, as well as to delimitate intuitive and reflexive components in representing dynamic changes in the content structure of some basic concepts of the precedential world “The Great Patriotic War”, to reveal the mechanisms of forming a special axiological space of sociocultural and episodic memory contamination in the context of studying the psycho-mental interaction of several reflective realities (Bredikhin, 2015).

Research Methods

The hermeneutic-noematic method used in this study should be recognized as the most adequate goal of the linguo-philosophical analysis of the axiological space of the precedential world in the changing generalized content of the metaphysical contaminated assessment phenomenon within the framework of subject-object asymmetry, as well as identifying ways of verbalization. Applying its basic techniques it is possible to describe the philosophical understanding of the category of evaluation in its various guises: ontological, epistemological and, especially, metaphysical; and also to reveal the space of contamination of real and reflective experience when forming the axiological components of precedentiality. The components of critical discourse analysis were used as additional methods of analysis for determining the mental and verbal actualizers of the generalized meaning.

Findings

First of all, it is necessary to clarify the issue of the philosophical foundations of axiological space interpretation. It is obvious that it represents a specific aspect of the central epistemological problem being the relationship of a person with objective reality in its various forms. In the most general sense, this form of human being in reality can be represented in three planes: subject-practical (direct interaction with real phenomena), epistemological (reflexive-empirical interaction) and axiological (truly reflexive comparative interaction). The analysis of the third aspect also representing a specific trichotomy: value-oriented action, value-stereotyped attitude and value-comparative awareness, is implemented in a verbal format. Thus, it is the linguistic expression, after repeated rethinking, which has both intentional and naive intuitive forms and stereotyping, in which only the abstraction “detachment” of the phenomena “from their existential and qualitative characteristics” arises (Baryshkov, 2009). The intensification of detachment and value-comparative elements of changes in the mental structures of social and historical memory under the influence of episodic components are most clearly traced in a fairly short period of the emergence and development of the precedential world “Great Patriotic War” (Afanasyeva & Merkushin, 2005).

In some cases, axiological space should be approached as a special metaphysical aspect of a contaminated onto-gnoseological area. This approach is stipulated, first of all, by the target dominants of the psycho-reflective sphere of the value-normative, which irradiates along two vectors: 1) the worldview value foundations (stereotypes in relation to the phenomena of objective reality), comparison of actual actions with ultimate goals and meanings; 2) the implementation of the assessment component in other areas of culture and functioning as a metaphysical basis for necessary and sufficient real and reflective actions to achieve the utmost goal. It implies introduction aesthetics and ethics of interaction into the spheres of philosophy of culture (Anisimov, 2001). Thus, the philosophical plan for comprehending conceptual and valeur problems in the precedential text of culture being a verbal representative of the precedential world includes both ontological and epistemological aspects of reflection, which gives it an intentionally personal metaphysical character with a rethinking of abstract components in a specific individual and situational modified format. Specifically, axiological reflection on the events of the real and mental world exists as a separate area of theorization and conceptualization. According to Baryshkov (2009), the historical and socio-cultural components of the value-orientational space are organically included in the dominants of the axiological space, along with legal, moral, scientific ones, etc.

However, the main issue of both philosophical and linguistic axiology is the content of the concept of “value”. Thus, the “Newest Philosophical Dictionary” sees only a functional-normalizing component in values, asserting that they form the meaning-making base of a person’s conscious being and, thus, set a conscious motivation for actions in reality (The latest philosophical dictionary, 2003). Many scientists agree with such an assessment of the pre-eminence of goal-setting in the axiological space. For example, Ivanov emphasizes that intentional harmonious activity in interaction with reality is the essence of the value superstructure of reflexive reality (Ivanov & Mironov, 2004).

However, some definitions recognize the inverse function of values as the dominant component of axiology. Specifically, it implies the intensification of generated attention and interpretation to certain phenomena of the real and reflexive world. Simplistically, any abstract mental construction or real object that correlates with objective interest in various types of action appears to be value (Baryshkov, 2009). Thus, we can conclude the value category in the context and space of the specific reality of awareness of the subject-object asymmetry of the voluntary space of the human world perception, understood as the uniformity and integrity of such a phenomenon as life is delimitated.

The category of axiology is immanently attached to any sign system, regardless of the basic principles of encoding. This means that the system of linguistic representation of real and mental spaces (the special code system of artistic verbalization included in it) provides evaluativity with regards to the following criteria: historicity, sociality and cultural sensitivity, which is determined by the gradual and prolonged period of its formation and development in both symbolic and figurative explicators of its units in the literary language. In this respect, the period of the Great Patriotic War, which created a specific symbolic conceptual and valeur space within the framework of the precedential world is one of the most marked milestones in the socio-historical development of the components of the axiological space of Russian linguoculture, marked by the active transformation of the existing units and markers of verbal explication and the formation of new ones. Due to this precise reason this period of development of the language system and literary creativity can be designated as one of the basic representatives of the ontogenetic semantics of the transmitting of axiological orientation both in the prelogical (intuitive) and logical (reflexive) spheres of symbolization and stereotyping. Development of evaluativity categories in retrospect is directly dependent on the historical destinies of the native speakers of the Russian literary language, reflecting a change in views on the world around them (Avramova, 2003), in particular, the desacralization of thinking and the secularization of the Russian society life in general as the most powerful extra-linguistic factor diachronically participating in the assessment category formation in modern Russian language of this particular period, and then its further progressive development based on the formed models of the contaminated individual and general linguistic cultural representation of the value-orientational space. This factor is reflected in the nature of the evaluative means selection in the direction from a separate axiologically oriented lexeme or the name of a quasi stereotype to a precedential text being a single linguistic unit verbalizing not only this category but also the whole precedential world in terms of subject-object asymmetry, in attempts to change the social worldview and form a new type of axiological space.

From 1939 to 1945, the axiological system evolved in the framework of the following processes: 1) linguistic units as markers of the verbal explication of axiological components retained their evaluative function throughout the entire period of the Russian literary language history (from the 17th to the 19th centuries) based on intensifying etymological and historical components within the irrelevant space of semantization (Taboada, 2006); 2) the function of the corresponding assessment inherent in a linguistic unit in one period or another is transformed in another period up to the opposite position, this process involves peripheral components actualization; 3) the linguistic unit acquires potential ambivalence within the framework of contamination in the individual author’s rethinking of the nuclear and peripheral components of the generalized content; 4) a linguistic unit capable of transmitting positive or negative qualifications turns to be legitimized in a new quality in a modified axiological space in the corresponding period. From the standpoint of diachrony in the language synchrony, the evolutionary nature of axiological categories is clearly visible both in the formal and in the semantic complication of its verbalization throughout the considered period of transformation. Specifically, it transforms from one-word diminutives and diminutive formations specialized in the expression of axiological meanings to syntagmas being text fragments and complete texts; from unambiguous, polarized assessments to assessments of an ambivalent nature; from assessments focused only on expressing a positive or negative attitude towards the object of assessment during the period of inchoative nuclear use and at the beginning of the transformation period to assessments of the syncretic type in the already rethought conceptual and valeur system. In parallel with this process, a special class of assessments with complicated semantics and a certain position in the structure of the utterance is being formed on the diachronic axis, which is observed precisely during the development of a special system of artistic symbols.

The archetypal dichotomy “good – bad” is implemented within the framework of symbolization and verbalization of the axiological space of language. As Wolf emphasizes, there is no language system (except for formal codes) in which the universal category of evaluativity is not represented (Wolf, 2002). To various extents, any utterance of a specific language is characterized by the aspect of evaluating one or another object in question, the utterance is evaluative both in its integrity and in its individual components being markers of the conceptual-valeur space (Bredikhin & Alikaev, 2016). The degree of value (valeur) in various systems is determined by the function of the direct relationship of necessity to voluntativity (the desirability of a given object in a situation of action). The strive for objectifying the background of the axiological space will form the basis of subjective assessment, while the potential degree of de-objectification of the same axiological component will serve as the dominant for the objective place of this evaluative phenomenon in the conceptual-valeur system. Based on semantic and noematic analysis, a search for areas of intersection of “the good” for a specific individual and for the entire linguocultural community can be made, which will provide a ground for establishing the degree of pragmatism, the level of perlocutionary effect exerted by both individual verbalizers and whole associative clusters in various precedential worlds and the textual spaces that represent them (Arutyunova, 1999).

Reactivity and situationality in the category of assessing the phenomena verbalized in language and denoting the precedential world were revealed at the beginning of the 20th century by Charles Bally. However, it must be emphasized that for him this reactivity was not the subject of conscious reflection, but an absolutely intuitive phenomenon. The moral norms inherent in a particular community were compared outside the intentional understanding of the questions “why?” and “how?” a stereotyped view of the conformity of one or another objective or reflexive action was formed (Bally, 1955).

The answer to these questions, which are relevant for the formation of a conscious axiological space and including the mechanisms of intentional comparative analysis of subjective and objective fields of assessment, is possible only within the framework of the verbalization of the axiological components of the precedential world based on various purely linguistic (phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical) methods of objectification for linguocultural community being the translation of impersonal abstract systemic valeur traits into the personal voluntary space of situational perception.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the analysis of contaminative processes in the space of formation and constant transformation of the axiological space of the precedent world “Great Patriotic War”, we can conclude about the dominant mechanism of intentional objectification of the components of episodic memory in verbalizers that function as markers in a literary text. It is also necessary to recognize reactivity and situationality as immanent feature of the verbalization process, as well as the most incoative aspect of thinking of one or another precedential phenomenon in terms of assessing and comparing real and reflexive action in the dichotomy “good – bad”. At the same time, the very process of deliberate evaluative objectification of this or that phenomenon of the precedential world serves as the basis for the individual (episodic) component of the axiological space. At the same time, the possibility of de-objectification of this sphere by other members of the linguocultural community provides a unified basis for determining the objective role of the “correctness” of the assessment of the real or reflexive acting in the general cultural conceptual-valeur system (socio-cultural memory).

References

• Afanasyeva, L. I., & Merkushin, V. I. (2005). The Great Patriotic War in the historical memory of Russians. Sociological Research, 5, 11–22.

• Anisimov, S. F. (2001). Introduction to Axiology. Modern notebooks.

• Arutyunova, N. D. (1999). Language and the world of man. Languages of Russian Culture.

• Avramova, V. (2003). Conceptual sphere of evaluativity in the national world view. In: Problems of cognitive and functional description of Russian and Bulgarian (Iss. 2, рр. 17–31) Shuman.

• Bally, S. (1955). French stylistics. Foreign Literature Publishing House.

• Baryshkov, V. P. (2009). Axiology. Science.

• Bredikhin, S. N. (2015). General principles of text construction as an object of meaning de-objectification. Cognitive Language Research, 20, 634–640.

• Bredikhin, S. N., & Alikaev, R. S. (2016). Strategies for discerning and de-objectifying semantic constructs in the aspect of understanding and living. Cognitive Linguistics Issues, 2(47), 123–128.

• Ivanov, A. V., & Mironov, V. V. (2004). University Lectures on Metaphysics. Modern notebooks.

• Taboada, M. (2006). Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 567–592.

• The latest philosophical dictionary. (2003). Minsk: Book House.

• Wolf, E. M. (2002). Functional semantics of evaluation. Editorial URSS.