INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF LINGUISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS

Tarasov E.F.

Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Moscow, Russia
e-mail: eft35@mail.ru

The analysis of problems of linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness occupies a significant place in Russian psycholinguistics, because without solving these problems it is impossible to study the processes of speech production and perception, the ontogenesis of language and speech communication.

The preconditions for solving the problems of linguistic consciousness were created primarily in the works of L.S. Vygotsky, A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontiev and N.I. Zhinkin and their students and followers.

It is advisable to turn first of all to the analysis of some of the works of L.S. Vygotsky and, above all, to his theory of higher mental functions (HMF), since the formation of the cultural-historical and system-activity approaches to the analysis and explanation of mental processes occurred to a large extent in line with his works.

Substantiating the cultural-historical theory of higher mental functions that he was developing, L.S. Vygotsky wrote that «every higher mental function is <…> a specific neoplasm», which is not a continuation of the innate corresponding elementary function,«<…> »higher mental functions are not built on top of the elementary processes like a second floor«; “with the disintegration of higher mental functions <…> the connection between symbolic and natural functions is destroyed» [7, pp. 56-59]. The development of these provisions by A.N. Leontiev allowed him to formulate methodological conclusions that became the basis for the formation of theoretical ideas about linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness: «The subject from the very beginning is «not in front of the world, but “inside the world” <…> It follows from this that one should look for objective reasons for the formation and development of mental phenomena in natural material relations <…> The development of mental functions of a modern person is, first of all, the result of his inclusion in the social environment, in the framework of joint human activity, in the framework of the socio-historical process through which humanity interacts with the natural environment» [21, pp. 37-38].

This judgment by S.V. Malanov, one of the interpreters of the cultural-historical and system-activity approaches to the external cultural conditioning of internal human mental processes, reveals the principle of explaining the human psyche.

Before turning to L.S. Vygotsky's analysis of inner speech, whose conclusions we use as the foundation for our understanding of linguistic consciousness, we will attempt to highlight the concepts of L.S. Vygotsky and A.N. Leontiev regarding the formation of higher mental functions (HMF), including consciousness and speech, within the framework of the cultural-historical and systems-activity approaches. These approaches can function as specific scientific methodological frameworks for analyzing linguistic consciousness, setting regulatory guidelines for the analyst's work. L.S. Vygotsky demonstrated the characteristics of the process of ontogenesis of the human psyche through the development of HMF, which he interpreted as neoplasms derived from forms of joint activity (JA) and verbal communication between adults and children.

In his work «Tool and Sign in Child Development» [7, pp. 6-80], he showed the development of higher mental functions as a process determined by a specific ethnic culture, actively appropriated by a child in the process of communication with adults, according to L.S. Vygotsky, and in the process of SD of an adult and a child immersed in RO, according to A.N. Leontiev [Ibid.].

A.N. Leontiev in his theory of activity expands to the utmost the explanatory potential of the cultural-historical approach, believing that human activity and psyche form a functional unity: L.S. Vygotsky’s position that consciousness is a product of a child’s verbal communication in the conditions of his activity in relation to the material reality surrounding him must be reversed: a child’s consciousness is a product of his human activity in relation to objective reality, which occurs in the conditions of language, in the conditions of verbal communication [16, p. 259].

The problem of linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness was formulated by L.S. Vygotsky in his theory of inner speech, which he viewed as a mechanism for translating the content of thought—conscious, as we would say today, by the subject of consciousness in the form of his individual consciousness—into external speech, which serves as a means of transforming thought into images of social consciousness, intelligible to all other speakers of the language. The idea of the absence of an impassable boundary between the individual and social consciousness of members of society who have appropriated an identical ethnic culture will remain entrenched in Russian psychology and will appear in A.A. Leontiev's treatment of the dual ontology of meaning [Ibid., p. 183].

Let us turn to the analysis of the characteristics of inner speech, according to L.S. Vygotsky.«<…> Inner speech is a completely special independent function of speech.. "Before us is truly speech, which is entirely and completely different from external speech. We are therefore entitled to regard it as a special internal plane of verbal thinking, mediating the dynamic relationship between thought and word" [6, pp. 352–353].

L.S. Vygotsky views inner speech as an important process that transforms an individual form of consciousness—visual images of perception or images of representation that isomorphically (or with a high degree of isomorphism) reflect reality—into a social form of consciousness, which homomorphically reflects images of non-linguistic consciousness, drawing on the substance of linguistic signs and images of social consciousness. In individual consciousness, the meaning of an object is presented to the subject by an image of consciousness in a certain modality, while in social consciousness, meaning is presented by an image of social consciousness, a more generalized form of consciousness due to its long-term processing in the consciousness of speakers oriented toward variable communication conditions.

L.S. Vygotsky believed that when internal speech transitions to external speech, «restructuring, the transformation of a completely original and distinctive syntax, semantic and sound structure and inner speech into other structural forms inherent in external speech» [6, p. 353]. He also insists that «<…> "The flow and movement of thought does not coincide directly and immediately with the development of speech. Units of thought and units of speech do not coincide. One and the other process exhibit unity, but not identity" [Ibid., p. 354].

L.S. Vygotsky's concept of inner speech, from which it followed that external speech, used to regulate the behavior of people participating in SD, conceals individual consciousness, based on images (perceptions, memories and ideas), this consciousness for oneself, and inner speech as the first stage of the translation of individual consciousness with its isomorphic images into social consciousness - consciousness for others - with its homomorphic images, based on the substance of the bodies of linguistic signs and on the images of linguistic consciousness, was proposed by A.A. Leontiev in many works.

In his "Selected Psychological Works," published under the title "Language and Speech Activity in General and Educational Psychology," A.A. Leontiev devoted an entire section, "Meaning and Sense," to the analysis of linguistic consciousness. It consists of three subsections: "Meaning as a Psychological Concept," "The Psychological Structure of Meaning," and "Forms of Meaning's Existence" [18]. Another article, "Linguistic Consciousness and the Image of the World," should be added here. The content of all these articles can be viewed as the reception and further development of ideas, primarily from A.N. Leontiev's theory of activity, for solving the problem of linguistic consciousness.

In his article «Linguistic Consciousness and the Image of the World,» A.A. Leontiev [Ibid., pp. 123-130] relies on A.N. Leontiev, who connects the understanding of consciousness with language as an instrument of consciousness, i.e. with that «in which and by means of which» consciousness exists: «that in which and by means of which the consciousness of society exists is language» [15, p. 38]. In other words, mastering language means the ability to operate with consciousness, i.e., with the images of consciousness itself, which is a reflection of the objective world of man—his tools and objects made with this tool: «The tool and that at which the tool is directed—the world of objects created by man—that is where we must seek the key to the human psyche, to human consciousness» [Ibid., pp. 14; 17; 19].

The consciousness of a specific person exists for him in the form of images of cultural objects - in this sense, culture (the world of cultural objects) is the substance of human consciousness, but to represent one's own (unique) consciousness to other people, a language is needed that is understandable not only in form, but also common in the content of knowledge associated with the bodies of linguistic signs. In the famous article by V.P. Zinchenko and M.K. Mamardashvili "The Problem of the Objective Method in Psychology" of 1977, republished in 2006 on the "Humanitarian Portal", it is shown that "the picture of objects and beings of an imaginary supersensible reality, ritually staged on human material and behavior, which has existed for thousands of years, can be translated into terms of metapsychology by analysis [10]. The authors of the article V.P. Zinchenko and M.K. Mamardashvili has in mind, first of all, the religious buildings and religious practices in the countries of the Ancient World, which in external form reflected the images of religious consciousness, used for the «reproduction and regulation of conscious life, mediated in this case by the forced action on a person of special, sensory-supersensory, as Marx would call them, objects [Ibid.].

The conclusion about the existence of an objective, external form of human consciousness – outside and before the beginning of the life of a specific member of society – in the form of an objective and active culture of an ethnic group is inevitably transformed into an idea that the authors of the article express in the form of a statement that this external form of culture allows us to recognize and analyze the functioning of subjectivity (consciousness – E.T.) by subject external to the subject of the world» [Ibid.].

The existence of two forms of consciousness – consciousness for oneself and consciousness for others – is described by A.N. Leontiev as the double life of meaning.

But first, let us return to the origins of consciousness according to A.N. Leontiev. The image of consciousness is formed in the activity during the manufacturing process of a certain product, which, before it is manufactured, must exist in the form of a standard image, as a guide, on the basis of whose properties the product is manufactured [17, p. 94]. The functioning of the image of the manufactured object-product as a regulator of activity requires the consciousness of this image. Therefore, A.N. Leontiev concludes that consciousness arises in the activity of manufacturing an object-product, controlled by the image of this object-product: «Labor activity is imprinted in its product. In the words of Marx, a transition of activity into a dormant property occurs. This transition represents the process of material embodiment of the objective content of activity, which is now presented to the subject, i.e. appears before him in the form of an image of the perceived object» [17, p. 95]. And one more quote: «The main problem is to understand consciousness as a subjective product, as a transformed form of manifestation of those social by nature relations that are carried out by human activity in the objective world» [Ibid., p. 96].

Thus, already in A.N. Leontiev’s concept of the origin of consciousness, there is a dual understanding of consciousness and meaning as the content of the image of consciousness as a social phenomenon and as an individual phenomenon, «living» in the body of a social person, endowed with receptors.

Meanings of "«<…> »They are part of the system of social consciousness and are social phenomena (and in this capacity they are primarily studied by linguistics); but at the same time they are part of the system of personality and activity of specific subjects and are part of individual consciousness (and in this capacity they are studied by psychology)” [18, p. 183].

For the purposes of psycholinguistics, it is important to distinguish between the meaning of a word for linguistics and its meaning for psychology. When analyzing speech processes, it is useful to distinguish between word meaning as socially developed and assigned content, which allows each native speaker to convey the content of their individual consciousness to others through understandable images of linguistic consciousness, and partially individual meaning, formed by the individual through perceptual images during their sensory and perceptual perception, relying on their own memory images as perceptual standards. It should be noted that the storage of images in the mind is accompanied by their processing by comparing them with images stored in the individual's social memory. Although, of course, the poet was right when he wrote that "an expressed thought is a lie" (F. Tyutchev), a person has no other way to become understandable to others.

As a result of the individual's involvement in orientation processes carried out within the structure of external, objective-practical activity, a system of images of one's own culture is formed in the individual's consciousness. A.N. Leontiev proposed the concept of a world image to describe this system. This concept denotes not only the totality of images of a specific ethnic culture formed by the individual during socialization and enculturation, but also the functional organization of sensory cognition [14, pp. 251-261].

A.N. Leontiev’s student S.D. Smirnov, developing and refining the epistemological possibilities of the concept of the image of the world, showed that each image of consciousness of a cognizable object of reality exists only in the environment of other images that reflect the real configuration of objects in the world, which, to a greater extent than the object itself, determine its properties [26, pp. 23-24].

The image of the world is a tool for understanding reality, developed through social practice and understood from the perspective of this practice as the fifth quasi-dimension of the world.

Let us cite the thought of A.N. Leontiev, which, as it seems, reveals the content of the concepts of «non-linguistic consciousness» and «linguistic consciousness»: «<…> the properties of meaningfulness and categoricality are the characteristics of the consciousness of the image of the world, not immanent to the image itself consciousness. These characteristics express the objectivity revealed by social practice, idealized in the system of meanings that each individual finds as “outside-it-exists”- perceived, assimilated – and therefore just as what is included in his image of the world» [14, p. 253].

Each individual, living in a specific society, forms his or her personality by appropriating the culture of the society, being armed with a system of objective meanings that reflect the characteristics of reality, revealed by social practice and offered to each individual for assimilation during ontogenesis.

The individual's assimilation of the results of social practice imbues the world with meaning and introduces a fifth quasi-dimension of reality that channels understanding of the world, making it ethnocultural. However, this dimension is not immanent in the linguistic form of consciousness: the properties of the real world are only partially, in an isolated form, reflected in the meanings of linguistic signs. Therefore, an individual, for example, mastering a certain profession, must cultivate the ability not only to construct meanings and develop the skills and abilities of professional consciousness and professional activity (its goals, motives, operations), but also to describe their activity using professional terms. If, for example, professional activity is described in terms of a worldview, then we can conclude that a professional must first and foremost create a professional worldview—that is, a professional non-linguistic consciousness, a professional quasi-dimension of the world, captured not in words but in tools, abilities, and skills—and only secondarily, a linguistic professional worldview.

In his theory of the image of the world, A.N. Leontiev clearly distinguishes between consciousness, consisting of objective meanings revealed by social practice, i.e. consciousness itself, and the body of the linguistic sign, and its (existing, we note, incidentally, only in procedural form), recorded each time «in formal sign operations.».

In other words, there is consciousness itself, functioning within the human body, and there are means of externalizing this consciousness—the verbal modeling of consciousness. This is what enables the consciousness of members of society to exist in external form. But here one must not fall into the trap of apparent obviousness—the linguistic model of consciousness is only its model, but not consciousness itself, which functions only within the body of a living person: a text in a dead language externalizes nothing, since there is no speaker externalizing his consciousness in the text, and there is no recipient who can construct (not receive) new knowledge from his own knowledge in a process triggered by the fact of perceiving the form of the bodies of linguistic signs of a speech message, which in themselves possess no knowledge. In the world there are only people who have known the world and possess a community of consciousness, and there are verbal and non-verbal signs, the bodies of which, being produced by speakers and perceived by the recipient, evoke similar associations in the consciousness of each communicant as a consequence of the community of consciousnesses.

A.N. Leontiev's concept of the image of the world allows us to draw certain conclusions for solving the problem of linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness, which, first of all, should concern the functions of both forms of consciousness.

Human consciousness is the result and process of forming an image of reality in the human body from the perspective of a specific society.

Society determines the consciousness of its members through the achievements of its social practice, by imposing a system of images of consciousness (called the image of the world by A.N. Leontiev) on everyone who assimilates a specific ethnic culture.

Individual consciousness is formed through the appropriation of cultural subject meanings, revealed by social practice and imperatively offered to every member of the culture for assimilation. This means that a consciousness is formed that is individual in its storage and functioning, yet social in its essence, within the body of a particular individual. This is a non-linguistic consciousness.

The problem of images of consciousness in cognitive psychology is discussed in the works primarily of A. Paivio [23], although not only by him [12; 5].

Linguistic consciousness (the verbal model of non-linguistic consciousness) is social in the content and form of the bodies of linguistic signs that function in external speech in intersubjective space. Communicators, possessing identical images of the world and, consequently, a common awareness of the world, do not transmit any knowledge to each other (as this is physically impossible), but rather encourage each other to produce knowledge by generating and perceiving speech messages consisting solely of bodies of linguistic signs in order to guide each other's behavior.

The non-linguistic consciousness of each person, which equips him in perceiving the world, is accessible only to him as a subject of consciousness; linguistic consciousness is a tool for interpreting (modeling) my non-linguistic consciousness, uniting me with all speakers of my language.

The postulation of two forms of human consciousness: individual, formed through the perception of objects of reality, when images (memories) of the native culture functioned as perceptual standards, and social (public), represented by verbal models (linguistic signs), the content of which is the property of the consciousness of all speakers of the language and culture, can lead to the question of how they function in the verbal communication of bearers of both forms of consciousness.

The concept of linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness is necessary, first of all, for solving the problems of speech production and perception.

Speech production involves the development of a speech chain that verbally models a thought formed by the subject of speech influence with the help of images of non-linguistic consciousness.

A spoken speech message consists solely of linguistic sign bodies in the form of sound vibrations. The semantic perception of a speech message occurs through the recipient's construction of a chain of conscious images from images associated with the identified linguistic sign bodies. The process of semantic perception itself is initiated by the initial reception of linguistic sign bodies.

Since the communication channel contains nothing but air vibrations, the presentation of a chain of linguistic sign bodies for semantic perception initiates in the recipient's consciousness the process of generating knowledge from the meanings associated with the perceived chain of linguistic sign bodies. This knowledge is ultimately interpreted using primarily visual images of consciousness, if, naturally, such images are present in the recipient's consciousness [28, p. 25].

A model of consciousness that allows us to distinguish between consciousness itself in the form of images and its verbal form of external representation to another person makes it possible to understand the process of perception and storage of speech messages.

In the psycholinguistic theory of text comprehension, A.A. Leontiev introduces the concept image of the content of the text, by which he means «the process of translating meaning <…> text into any other form of its consolidation», «<…> the process of constructing an image of an object or situation endowed with a certain meaning»,«<…> the process of forming personal-semantic formations that are only indirectly connected with the meaning of the original text», «<…> the process of forming an emotional assessment of an event», «or, finally, the process of developing an algorithm of operations prescribed by the text».

«<…> The image of the content of the text is not some kind of summary or end result of understanding. <…> The image of a text's content is fundamentally dynamic. It doesn't exist, but rather becomes, and only in this constant becoming is its being. <…> The perception of a text is subject to general laws of perception, and the image of the text's content is an objective image. Its objectivity is of a special kind, but the principle remains unshakable: from the very beginning, we operate with what stands behind text. »What lies behind it? The changing world of events, situations, ideas, feelings, motivations, and human values—the real world that exists outside and before the text (or created by the imagination of the author of the text, but just as real for the reader)” [19, pp. 141–143].

Thus, the theory of linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness explains the rather complex phenomenology of the processes of speech production and perception, which is also mystified by the false metaphor of the phrase «information transfer.».

It has been shown that in communication mediated by signs, the speaker, taking into account the commonality of his consciousness and the consciousness of the recipient, produces and presents cultural objects (bodies of linguistic signs) for the recipient’s perception, the perception of which encourages the latter to produce knowledge predicted by the speaker [28].

Communicators produce and perceive speech messages with the sole purpose of controlling each other’s behavior for the sake of organizing the SD, in the structure of which the object of their speech influence is represented to them [27].

So, let's return to the semantic perception of speech.

After the semantic perception of speech (text), a simultaneous schema of images from non-linguistic consciousness ultimately remains in the recipient's long-term memory, which is the image of the content of the speech (text). For other recipients, the content (i.e., the image of the content of speech) of the perceived speech message may be externalized and presented for semantic perception to other recipients in a slightly modified external form, which will naturally lead to a certain change in the image of the content of the verbal form of speech. Any attempt to compose an image of the content of the same speech by different recipients, or by the same recipient at different times, leads to some transformation, since the image of the content of speech is formed by each recipient from their unique, but expected, images of consciousness. The image of the content of a speech message is formed not from the content of all words, but primarily from those that, in the communicants' opinion, can be considered key. Therefore, the image of the content of a speech message can rely on verbal means, with varying degrees of adequacy, that model images of non-linguistic consciousness and reflect objects of reality. This refers to such forms of written text as abstracts, summaries, retellings, translations, keywords, various graphs, and other methods of symbolically recording the content of speech messages.

The ability to externalize the same content using non-identical verbal models is further evidence of the heuristic nature of the distinction between non-linguistic and linguistic consciousness. However, this raises the problem of defining the boundaries of the diversity of semantic perception of the same speech message. According to A.A. Leontiev, this is the problem of "degrees of freedom in the content of the text" [19, p. 144].

A.A. Leontiev offers, in our opinion, an elegant, albeit obvious, solution: «Undoubtedly, each reader «reads» somewhat different content from the text. However, by perceiving the text differently, we do not construct different worlds: we construct the same world differently» [Ibid., p. 144].

It should be added that the world reflected in the texts is the world that is given to us in terms of A.N. Leontiev's image of the world, because we live in a world reflected in our consciousness, and the commonality of which among communicants is an obligatory prerequisite for symbolic communication.

Now we can formulate with some degree of confidence the basic postulates that can be used as the basis for the theory of linguistic consciousness.

Let us move on to a description of the process of speech production and perception based on the ideas formed in the TRD, which can be considered the most adequate [1; 3; 4; 9; 19; 20; 24; 25].

The speech-recognition model attempts to address the problem of language functioning by assuming a model of speech production and a model of speech perception, focusing on the subject-object schema, each time outlining the perspective of speech process analysis from the subject of speech interaction to the object. Following this epistemological approach, A.A. Leontiev posits the first stage of his speech production model as an analysis of the social situation in which the subject of potential speech interaction finds themselves, with the goal of answering the question of whether they can solve a particular life problem individually or whether they will require assistance. By incorporating this stage, A.A. Leontiev achieves two goals: first, it identifies the mechanism of speech's connection to the speaker's life—speech is necessary for survival. Second, it identifies the external, unobservable stages of speech production, which begins before it can be heard. The impossibility of individually solving a particular problem is the impetus for the development of a speech utterance, i.e., its motive.

According to A.A. Leontiev, in the process of speech production, the motivational stage is followed by the stage of actual speech production, which he calls internal programming, which he defines as a hierarchical network of propositions [19, p. 144], which for the speaker in his consciousness exists as a verbalization system of images of consciousness, and as a «subject-scheme, or subject-pictorial code,» according to N.I. Zhinkin [8].

It's worth noting that A.A. Leontiev's internal program of speech utterance, realized in external form, is a "hierarchical network of propositions," not the sensory-figurative constructs of non-linguistic consciousness. However, the verbal constructions that present propositions to the speaker do not arise from nothing; they replace the sensory images used by the speaker to construct the content of the utterance.

Based on N.I. Zhinkin's ideas about the figurative structure of thought, A.A. Leontiev believes that this thought acquires personal meaning when correlated with an already formed motive [19, p. 115]. For now, the content of the future utterance exists in the form of a subjective code common to both communicants, the commonality of which is determined by the adopted single ethnic culture. The speaker's task in this case is to translate this internal figurative code of thought into a speech utterance consisting of lexical units, the generalized meaning of which reflects the subjective content of the speaker's thought, which, thanks to such generalization by linguistic units, becomes accessible for translation into the internal subjective figurative code of the recipient.

The translation of the speaker's subjective images of thought into the objective code of language is the process of articulating thoughts (albeit still in an internal form), which, according to A.A. Leontiev, consists of several sub-stages: tectogrammatic (selection of lexical units, the semantic features of which are in some correspondence with the semantic features of subjective images of thought); phenogrammatic (distribution of semantic features associated at the previous stage with one code unit, into several code units of external speech); syntactic prediction (formation of a forecast about the syntactic organization of the planned utterance); syntactic control (comparison of the formed forecast with the existing program, speech context, communication situation). After this, the articulatory program is constructed (motor programming [Ibid., pp. 116-118]. Similar models of speech utterance production were proposed by T.V. Akhutina [4, p. 402] and I.A. Zimnyaya [2, p. 98].

It is logical to conclude our review of the problems of studying linguistic and non-linguistic consciousness with a brief analysis of the object areas on the basis of which these studies are carried out.

First of all, it is necessary to mention the long-term series of works by T.V. Akhutina, based on extensive experimental and clinical material [1; 4]. All of T.V. Akhutina's works are devoted to the problems of speech production and perception, the ontogenesis of language, and the structure and functioning of the lexicon.

If we discuss the contribution of T.V. Akhutina to the solution of problems in psycholinguistics, then, naturally, we must point to her many years of efforts to create a model of speech production, which began with work on the first version of this model, known as the «Leontiev-Ryabova model» or «Leontiev-Akhutina» and were completed in the refined model created by T.V. Akhutina and approved by A.A. Leontiev [4, p. 402].

The second broad area of study of linguistic consciousness is the associative thesaurus as a model of the linguistic consciousness of a native speaker.

The most important difference of this tool for analyzing linguistic consciousness is that, in contrast to the analysis of language practiced in descriptive linguistics, the associative experiment (AE) is used to analyze the actual linguistic consciousness of profane (real) speakers.

Let us try to show the advantages of AE for the analysis of linguistic consciousness of real native speakers.

The first advantage, according to N.V. Ufimtseva, is that it is possible to form an idea of the semantic connections of words that objectively exist in the psyche of a real native speaker, since the speech works of profane native speakers rarely become the object of scientific linguistics [28, p. 229].

Further, N.V. Ufimtseva shows that, thanks to AE, syntactic connections of words, which have hardly attracted the attention of linguists, are now falling into the area of scientific interest, although, probably, such connections of words play a large role in the construction of a speech goal.

Furthermore, the study of associative connections makes it possible to consider associative reactions as an "associative profile" specific to a given culture and language. Therefore, any associative dictionary is a unique tool for analyzing the ethnocultural specificity of the consciousness of native speakers [Ibid., p. 230].

An area of linguistic consciousness study that has recently attracted particular scientific interest is the problem of analyzing creolized texts (CT), also called polymodal and polycode.

Only 35 years have passed since L.V. Golovina defended her PhD dissertation "The Interinfluence of Iconic and Verbal Signs in the Semantic Perception of Text" in 1986, which was the first work on this topic. Over the past 20 years, an avalanche of approximately 70 dissertations on the construction and perception of creolized texts has been defended.

This is most likely explained by the desire to develop a more adequate understanding of the functioning of speech messages in society. The fact is that linguistics ignores the rather obvious fact that any speech message—written or spoken—is creolized, because. Always consists of linguistic and non-linguistic signs [22]. V.P. Morozov showed that the verbal channel of human communication always functions in conjunction with the non-verbal channel, i.e. communication through the non-verbal channel is polysensory: «<…> »non-verbal communication as a whole appears to be an exceptionally complex multi-channel and multi-level system of parallel influence on a person of many different types of information, which are at the same time in constant interaction with the semantics of the word” [Ibid., p. 77].

In the semantic perception of speech, understanding the behavior of the speaker himself and the entire communication situation: first of all, SD and RO, as well as the social-role characteristics of the speaker create pre-installation on understanding speech messages. Moreover, for understanding speech messages it is essential that communicants perceive each other primarily as social objects, as members of a specific ethnic group and a specific society [11, p. 59].

The staff of the Moscow Psycholinguistic School carried out a series of experimental studies of the semantic perception of creolized text, which were partially summarized in the interim edition «Creolized Text: Semantic Perception. Collective Monograph [13].

Based on the idea that the verbal channel of human communication coexists with the non-verbal polysensory channel, CT were selected for analysis, where the images of consciousness, from which the content is constructed by the author of the CT, are modeled twice: the image in the CT isomorphically or quasi-isomorphically models the images of consciousness of the content of the CT, and the verbal text homomorphically models the same content of the thought of the creator of the CT.

We have attempted to demonstrate the difficulties of understanding the processes of speech production and perception, in which the main role is played by the formation of the content of a speech utterance with the help of images of consciousness and, through the stage of internal speech, its verbal modeling in external form.

The use of the concepts of images of consciousness and its verbal modeling through the stage of internal speech creates a fairly adequate model of speech production and perception.

A.N. Leontiev's concept of the worldview as a system of knowledge common to all speakers of a language and culture explains the possibility of symbolic communication through the production and perception of speech, in which only the bodies of linguistic signs are produced and perceived in a speech message, carrying no information but merely serving as a stimulus that initiates a program for constructing the content of a speech message from the recipient's existing knowledge.

Literature

3. Akhutina T.V. Neurolinguistic analysis of dynamic aphasia. Moscow: Publishing House, 1975. 144 p. 2. Akhutina T.V., Gorelov I.N., Zalevskaya A.A. The study of verbal thinking in psycholinguistics / Ed. E.F. Tarasov. Moscow: "Nauka", 1985, 239 p.
4. Akhutina T.V. Speech generation. Neurolinguistic analysis of syntax. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1989. 215 p.
5. Akhutina T.V. Neurolinguistic analysis of vocabulary, semantics, and pragmatics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2014. 424 p.
6. Barsalu L. The system of perceptual symbols // Cognitive Psychology: History and Modernity. Reader: translated from English. Edited by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonov. Moscow: Lomonosov, 2011. 384 p.
7. Vygotsky L.S. Collected Works: In 6 volumes. Vol. 2. The Problem of General Psychology / Ed. by V.V. Davydov. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982. 504 p.
8. Vygotsky L.S. Collected Works: In 6 volumes. Vol. 6. Scientific Heritage / Ed. by M.G. Yaroshevsky. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1984. 400 p.
9. Zhinkin N.I. Speech mechanisms. Moscow, 1958. 461 p.
10. Winter I.A. Semantic perception of speech messages // Semantic perception of speech messages (in the context of mass communication). Moscow, 1976. Pp. 5-33.
11. Zinchenko V.P. Mamardashvili M.K. The Problem of the Objective Method in Psychology // Voprosy Filosofii, 1977. No. 7. Pp. 109–125 // Electronic publication: Center for Humanitarian Technologies. — 09/13/2006. URL: https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/444 Date of access: 08/30/2021.
12. Znakov V.V. Psychology of understanding: Problems and prospects. Moscow: Publishing house "Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences", 2005. 448 p.
13. Kosslin S.M. Mental images // Cognitive psychology: history and modernity. Reader: translated from English. Ed. by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonov. Moscow: Lomonosov, 2011. 384 p. 13. Creolized text: Semantic perception. Collective monograph / Ed. by I.V. Vashunina. Collective editors E.F. Tarasov, A.A. Nistratov, M.O. Matveev. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2020. 206 p.
14. Leontiev A.N. Image of the World / Selected Psychological Works. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1983. 392 p.
15. Leontiev A.N. Materials on consciousness // Vestn. MSU. Series: Psychology. 1988. No. 3. P. 25-34.
16. Leontiev A.N. Formation of activity psychology: Early works. Moscow: Smysl, 2003. 439 p.
17. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Kniga, 2012. 176 p.
18. Leontiev A.A. Language and speech activity in general and educational psychology: Selected works. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow Psychological and Social Institute; Voronezh: Publishing house of NPO MODEK, 2003. 536 p.
19. Leontiev A.A. Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Textbook for students of higher educational institutions. 4th ed., corrected. Moscow: Smysl; Publishing Center "Academy", 2005. 288 p.
20. Luria A.R. Main problems of neurolinguistics. Moscow, 1975. 254 p.
21. Malanov S.V. A system-activity cultural-historical approach to the analysis and explanation of mental phenomena: explanatory principles and theoretical propositions. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow Psychological and Social Institute; Voronezh: Publishing house of NPO MODEK, 2010. 496 p.
22. Morozov V.P. Nonverbal communication. Experimental psychological research / V.P. Morozov. Moscow: "Kogito-Center", 2011. 760 p.
23. Paivio A. Dual Coding Theory // Cognitive Psychology: History and Modernity. Reader: translated from English. Edited by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonov. Moscow: Lomonosov, 2011. 384 p.
24. Ryabova T.V. Types of violation of word polysemy in aphasia // Theory of speech activity. Problems of psycholinguistics. Moscow, 1968. Pp. 234-244.
25. Sakharny L.V. To the secrets of thought and word. Moscow, 1983. 160 p.
26. Smirnov S.D. The World of Images and the Image of the World // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 14. Psychology. 1981. No. 2. Pp. 15-29.
27. Tarasov E.F. Additional communication models (to the problem statement) // Organizational psycholinguistics. 2020. No. 3 (11). P. 10-21.
28. Ufimtseva N.V. Linguistic consciousness: dynamics and variability. Moscow, Kaluga: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2011. 252 p.
29. Chertov L.F. Significance: An attempt at theoretical synthesis of ideas on the linguistic method of information communication. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 1993. 388 p.

References

1. Ahutina T.V. Neurolinguistic analysis of dynamic aphasia. Moscow: Izd-vo, 1975. 143 s.
2. Ahutina T.V., Gorelov I.N., Zalevskaja A.A. The study of speech thinking in psycholinguistics / Otv. ed. EFTarasov. M.: «Nauka», 1985, 239 s.
3. Ahutina TV. Speech production. Neurolinguistic analysis of syntax. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1989, 215 pp.
4. Ahutina TV. Neurolinguistic analysis of vocabulary, semantics and pragmatism. Moscow: Slavic Languages, 2014, 424 p.
5. Barsalu L. The System of Perceptual Symbols // Cognitive Psychology: History and Modernity. Anthology: trans. from English. Ed. by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonova. Moscow: Lomonosov ITP5T, 2011. 384 p.
6. Vygotskij LS. Collection of works: In 6 volumes. Vol. 2. Problema obshhej psihologii / Ed. VV Davydova. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982. 504 s.
7. Vygotskij LS. Collected Works: In 6 Volumes. Vol. 6. Scientific Heritage / Edited by M. G. Jaroszewski. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1984. 400 pp.
8. Zhinkin NI. Mechanisms of speech. Moscow, 1958. 461 s.
9. Zimnjaja IA. Semantic perception of speech messages // Semantic perception of speech messages (in conditions of mass communication). Moscow, 1976. P. 5-33.
10. Zinchenko VP. Mamardashvili MK Problema ob#ektivnogo metoda v psihologii // Voprosy filosofii, 1977. No. 7. P. 109–125 // Elektronnaja publikacija: Centr gumanitarnyh tehnologij. — 13.09.2006. URL: https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/444 Data obrashhenija: 30.08.2021.
11. Znakov VV. Psihologija ponimanija: Problemy i perspektivy. M.: Izd-vo «Institut psihologii RAS», 2005. 448 s.
12. Kosslin SM. Mental images // Cognitive psychology: history and modernity. Reader: trans. from English. Ed. by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonova. Moscow: Lomonosov ITP5T, 2011. 384 p.
13. Creolized text: Semantic perception. Collective monograph / Otv. Ed. IV Vashunina. Ed. Koll. EF Tarasov, AA Nistratov, MO Matveev. M.: Institut jazykoznanija RAS, 2020. 206 s.
14. Leont'ev AN. Image of the World / Selected Psychological Works. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1983. 392 p.
15. Leont'ev AN. Materials on consciousness // Vestn. MGU. Ser. Psihologija.1988. No. 3. P. 25-34.
16. Leont'ev AN. Formation of the psychology of activity: Early work. Moscow: Smysl, 2003. 439 p.
17. Leont'ev AN. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M.: Kniga, 2012. 176 s.
18. Leont'ev AA. Language and speech activity in general and pedagogical psychology: Selected works. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow psychological and social institute; Voronezh: Publishing house of NPO ’MODJeK«, 2003. 536 p.
19. Leont'ev AA. Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Textbook for Stud. Higher. Educational Institutions. 4th ed., edited by M.: Smysl; Publishing Center "Akademija", 2005. 288 p.
20. Lurija AR. Main problems of neurolinguistics. M., 1975. 254 p.
21. Malanov SV. A systems-activity cultural-historical approach to the analysis and explanation of mental phenomena: explanatory principles and theoretical positions. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow Psychological and Social Institute; Voronezh: Publishing house of the NPO "MODJeK", 2010. 496 p.
22. Morozov VP. Neverbalanced communication. Experimental psychological research / V. P. Morozov. Moscow: Kogito-Centr, 2011. 760 p.
23. Pajvio A. Dual Coding Theory // Cognitive Psychology: History and Modernity. Reader: trans. from English. Ed. by M. Falikman and V. Spiridonova. Moscow: Lomonosov ITP5T, 2011. 384 p.
24. Rjabova TV. Types of violation of word polysemantics in aphasia // Theory of speech activity. Problems of psycholinguistics. Moscow, 1968. P. 234-244.
25. Saharnyj LV. To the secrets of thought and word. M., 1983. 160 s.
26. Smirnov SD. Mir obrazov i obraz mira // Vestnik Mosk.un-ta. Ser.14. Psychology. 1981. No. 3. S. 15-29.
27. Tarasov EF. Additional models of communication (to the problem statement) // Organizational Psycholinguistics. 2020. No. 3(11). P. 10-21.
28. Ufimceva NV. Language consciousness: dynamics and variability. Moscow, Kaluga: Institute of Language Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2011. 252 p.
29. Chertov LF. Znakovost': an attempt at a theoretical synthesis of ideas about the interlingual method of information communication. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 1993. 388 p.