Axiological interpretation of the "Gemeinschaft" concept

Skacheva Nina Assistant Professor, Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology 660037, Russia, Krasnoyaskii krai, g. Krasnoyarsk, Prospekt imeni gazety «Krasnoyarskii rabochii», 31 Sollo_sk@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Axiology as a science was originally a philosophical discipline that deals with the study of the category "value", the structure and hierarchy of the value world, and the ways of its cognition ^{[6, p.63]}. However, at the present stage, this concept is spreading beyond the philosophical sciences, including linguistics. "Axiological linguistics is a branch of linguistics that studies ways of expressing the speaker's assessment of the object of utterance, options for classifying assessments, as well as determining general cultural and nationally marked values through language analysis" ^{[5, p.35]}. Within the framework of this definition, we see two components – evaluation and value.

Evaluation, according to N. D. Arutyunova, is a special "cognitive act, as a result of which the attitude of the subject to the evaluated object is established in order to determine its significance in the life and activity of the subject" ^[1]. Evaluation activity can be determined not only by philosophical attitudes, but also by the commonality of subjective and objective factors – moral norms, social practice, value orientations, level of education ^{[4, p.25]}. Therefore, within the framework of the first definition of the axiological aspect, a speaker with the help of language and certain certain linguistic elements can transmit, in addition to an informational message as such, also his own evaluative connotation in relation to the object of the utterance ^{[5, p.36]}. Such a subjective approach involves the study of the text not only as a source of information, but also as a kind of vision of the speaker, where "axiologems" come to the fore.

Any linguistic expressions of evaluation in a given discursive space are considered axiologems ^{[4, p.25]}. In addition to explicit value judgments, these can be nominative linguistic means, figurative stable linguistic phrases, and so on. At the level of the utterance and the whole discourse, evaluativeness is conveyed by all its influencing potential, its thematization, expressiveness, the expression of such "penetrating" categories of the utterance as its personalization, the modalities of the utterance (assumptions), as well as the orientation of the utterance, empathy, the actant structure of the utterance, localization in time and space.

Axiological interpretation is aimed at identifying the direction of the utterance, its semantic component, as a reflection of the position of the subject of the utterance in relation to the outside world. Since the world of meaning is not linear, its interpretation is directed to the identification of meanings based primarily on the principles of relevance and the applied norm of axiological interpretation. Axiological interpretation allows us to focus on the deep semantic content of the text through the concepts of "value relation", "value orientations", "ideals", and on the functional semantics of evaluation ^[3].

However, value orientations determine not only subjective characteristics, but also society as a whole. The concepts of "value orientation", "value orientation" of an individual or collective subject, introduced into linguistic analysis from psychology and sociology, are the most operational to the understanding of value. Among the typology of values proposed by Yu.G. Veshninsky, ethnic values are distinguished, which include language, folklore, customs ^[2]. This list can be supplemented with the types and hierarchy of values characteristic of a particular society, which may be an ethnic group. But the "value orientations" and "values" are inside the subject, and only the assessment connects it with a social or other reality, with other people, ethnic society. Therefore, evaluation presupposes an opinion about value and has significance for the subject.

In this case, the definition of the value sphere in linguistics can be carried out in the following directions: the study of the deep and mental nature of evaluation, here the object of research can be the definitions of evaluation; the study of meanings in different types of discourses and texts aimed at identifying the semantic nature of axiologems; the study of the essence of meanings in linguistic semiometry.

Within the framework of semiometry, the semantic analysis of the enocultural parameters refers us to the hypothesis of linguistic relativity and places us in the context of the cultural chronotype. Bearing in mind that the construction of a general theory of axiology is outside the exclusive competence of linguistic semantics, it is interpretation that plays an irreplaceable role as a way of determining how the generation and formulation of meanings depend on the evaluation activity, the strategy of the person speaking and how it correlates with a certain axiological system of the ethnos ^{[4, p. 43]}. It is the contextual space of meaning formation of a discourse or text that is measured to identify meaning. This principle of axiological discourse or text is focused on the analysis of linguistic idiomatics of expressions as potential concepts. Concepts, as linguistic signs of the reflection of the picture of the world in the mind of the subject, fix the meanings inherent in this culture.

A. N. Prikhodko studies the concepts of the German language in detail, considering their linguistic and socio-cultural specifics ^[7], but he does not consider their axiological interpretation. Definitions of evaluation and evaluativeness in the axiology of language are disclosed in detail by N. D. Arutyunova. We study the concept from the point of view of its conceptual features and its linguistic implementation through a word, a phrase consisting of a set of semes that act as a means of representing cognitive processes in the structure of language. The axiological interpretation of the concept allows us to identify a number of conceptual features based on the elements of meaning through the method of contextual analysis. A.N. Prikhodko says that the concept is a linguistic and cultural unit ^[7]. Therefore, any concept under study is a mental formation with such a structure, where in the center there is a core, represented by a figurative component and an encyclopedic field, and a periphery, represented by an interpretive field ^{[9, p. 287]}. We have not met a single domestic and foreign study of the Gemeinschaft concept (community). Therefore, through the axiological analysis of the encyclopedic, interoretational and phraseological fields of the Gemeinschaft (community) concept, we investigate the features of its value and evaluation component.

The encyclopedic field includes such cognitive features that will help distinguish one concept from others that are similar to it in their semantic structure. The concept of Gemeinschaft (community) has a great similarity with the concept of Gesellschaft (society). Many studies have been conducted in the field of sociology on the similarity and difference of these concepts. From the point of view of the evaluation component of F. Tonnis gave a positive connotation of Gemeinschaft (community) in comparison with the concept of Gesellschaft (society), explaining that unification into a community is a historical process, unlike unification into a society ^{[11, c, 5]}. M. Weber sees the inverse relationship of the two concepts, saying that the community and society coexists like oil and water, repelling each other and simultaneously mixing ^{[11, c, 7]}. For us, the research of sociologists is also important, since the formation of a concept occurs during the life experience of a native speaker through practical interaction with the conceptualized phenomenon. Having analyzed the encyclopedic field of these concepts, we see that this confusion comes from the similarity of cognitive features reflecting the connection primarily with the way unity is formed into different social groups, including at the national level, so the similarity is determined in a synonymous series: group, people. The difference here is defined by the terms N?he (proximity), · Seelenverwandtschaft (soul mate), · Verbundenheit (connectedness) for the concept of Gemeinschaft (community) and K?rperschaft (corporation), Sozialstruktur (social structure), Miteinander (with each other) ·for the concept of Gesellschaft (society). Therefore, the axiological interpretation of the Gemeinschaft (community) concept is primarily determined by the way of unity and unification, where the semantic connotation of "society based on fundamental social values" is traced to describe many relationships involving affective feelings. That is why the term Europ?ische Gemeinschaft is used to describe the European Union. The fact that the community (and not society) is part of the German-language description of the European Union seems to reflect that Germans view the European Union as a broader "community" based on unity of values than a "corporation" to achieve an economic goal.

The interpretative field of the Gemeinschaft concept contains signs reflecting such meanings as "a group of people who feel connected by something; connection, unity, association; organized association" ^[10]. Let's consider each conceptual feature separately:

1. The conceptual sign "group of people" in corpus German-language dictionaries is given by a number of peripheral groups: die Gemeinschaft der Familie (family community), Dorfbewohner (villagers), V?lker (peoples), Religiondie Gemeinschaft (religious community) ^[10], which show axiologically possible groups of society for unification.

2. The conceptual feature "connection". Here the corpus dictionary shows the axiological interpretation of "living with someone in a community; marital community (= marriage); communion with God" ^[10], reflecting the nuclear feature of the Gemeinschaft concept.

3. The conceptual feature of "organized association" is defined by the interpretation of "enter the community, join the community" ^[10] and is defined by "the opportunity to enter, join the community.

 To determine the axiosphere of the Gemeinschaft concept, it is necessary to turn to the phraseological field, since most phraseological units are charged with evaluativeness, that is, their semantic structure demonstrates emotional evaluation, the attitude of the subject to something. Here you can turn to the emotional connotation of the expression: joking, ironic, dismissive, and so on. But not all phraseological units can convey information about value concepts. The value conceptosphere directly depends on the imagery of phraseology. Thus, V. N. Telia calls the figurative basis of phraseological units "the main nerve" ^{[8, p. 214]}. If the phraseology carries an image, then it has a holistic meaning. Here, the meaning of figurative phraseology is not equal to the sum of the meanings of its individual components – words and can be understood as a cultural text in which information about the value concepts of a certain ethnic group is encoded, and which is understandable only to him, since a direct understanding of phraseology does not reflect its true meaning. Therefore, we will turn here to the semantic analysis of phraseological units within the framework of semiometry. For analysis, we selected 14 phraseological units related to the axiological field of the Gemeinschaft concept, out of a total of 149. The collection of all phraseological units took place in different federal states of Germany in 2015. The phraseological field of the Gemeinschaft concept was justified based on its interpretative field in the spatial-linguistic context of German-speaking respondents, which made it possible for axiological interpretation taking into account contextual space.

There were mainly phraseological units with the contextual semantic meaning of "cohesion":Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth), Wange an Wange (cheek to cheek), Hand in Hand (hand in hand), Seite an Seite (side by side).

Phraseology of biblical origin:Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) means that "it is necessary to treat others the way you were treated", "for like, you should answer like." In the German language consciousness, the proverb is interpreted only negatively, since in the modern sense this proverb is used only when "it comes to expressing severe retribution."

While the phraseological units Hand in Hand (hand in hand), Seite an Seite (side by side) have a positive connotation of "cohesion for a century". Such expressions are often used as an oath during a wedding. In a similar semantic context, the phraseology mit jemandem durch dick und d ? nn gehen (to pass rivers and waters with someone) is used. This is what they say to a "real friend" when "you are with him in sorrow and in sorrow," which means "support in all situations."

The saying of the famous German poet F. Schiller's Verbunden werden auch die Schwachen m? chtig (the weak are also connected) is used in the context not of "the connection of the weak", but of "the loneliness of the strong". We also encountered a phraseology with a similar connotation: auch schwarze Schafe k ?nen Herden bilden (even black sheep form flocks), where the Gemeinschaft value is formed into an anti-value.

Such phraseological units as keine Kette ist st?rker als ihr schwaches Glied (no chain can be stronger than its weak link); Jeder f ?r sich (each for himself), auf dem Egotrip sein (to be on an ego journey), sich selbst der N?chste sein (to think first of all about yourself), von Tisch und Bett getrennt sein (to be separate from the table and bed) explicates the negative evaluative meaning of "egocentrism", thanks to which a positive assessment of the Gemeinschaft concept appears in the German language consciousness. Here, the contextual analysis of the Gemeinschaft phraseological field shows a positive assessment and an important value guideline of the German-speaking society.         

The considered examples allow us to assert that the Gemeinschaft phenomenon in the axiosphere of the German language picture of the world has a positive axiological status, which is confirmed by the analysis of the encyclopedic field of the Gemeinschaft concept in comparison with the Gesellschaft (society) concept. At the same time, the community acquires a negative axiological status in those situations when it is not controlled by moral and ethical norms, turning into violence. In this case, the value is transformed into an anti-value, which we have identified in the phraseological field of the Gemeinschaft concept.

Thus, the study of the works of modern researchers made it possible to describe the main categories of axiological interpretation of the Gemeinschaft concept. When considering the specifics of the structural organization of the Gemeinschaft concept, the most interesting segment for axiological analysis is the "connection" segment, built on value and spiritual unification into groups, into a community. As a result of the analysis of the linguistic means of representation of the concept under study, evaluative and value meanings in its content were identified. Having subjected the obtained data to an axiological interpretation, we can assert that in the German language picture of the world, the Gemeinschaft phenomenon has acquired a positive rather than a negative axiological status, that is, to be understood as a value, not an anti-value.