Abstract:
The concept is considered a unit of mental reflection of
consciousness, which together with other concepts creates a special
field – conceptosphere, the units of which are connected with each other
by systematic relations. The concepts included in the conceptosphere
have different values, which are determined by their role in public
consciousness. Particularly important features are referred to as “key
concepts of culture”. They play an important role in public life, and
their knowledge is considered one of the prerequisites for cultural
identification. Understanding the concept as a mental formation gives us the
opportunity not only to reconstruct the mental world of the bearer of the
conceptual system, his psyche, but also to determine his ethnomental
characteristics. Interpreting a fragment of the world in a conceptual
system is, first of all, a construction of information about a certain part
of the “picture of the world”.
Determining the relationship between ideographically organized
linguistic units and the conceptual system allows us to consider the
verbal ideographic organization as a representation of a conceptual
model that includes knowledge and “value” experience accumulated by
the said society. At the same time, the conceptual model leaves room
for further possibilities.
The report will discuss the concepts of death and life in Georgian
and Russian ethnolinguistic consciousness. “Life” and “death” belong to
the group that represents the universal basic complex. Attitude towards
life is formed in the process of historical development of the nation
and is expressed in the features of its culture, political, economic and
social life. The history and culture of the nation should influence the
perception of the world, the attitude towards these circumstances.
On the other hand, the type of attitude towards life largely
determines the behavior (including language) of a nation representing
a particular language. Therefore, the verbal realization of the concept,
its expressive side and the connotative field, can be absolutely identical
in different languages.
Despite individual differences in general theoretical issues, all
mentioned directions are united by a common anthropocentric vision.
Man, as a linguistic person, is not a set concept. He is the bearer of a
specific culture, a representative of a specific society, which determines
his ethnolinguistic status.
The organizing schema of the conceptual sphere of life and death
in both studied cultures is the presence/absence schema, around which
the whole complex of dependent microschemas is united.
