Linguistic pictures of world and its existence

The linguistic image of the world, as a fundamental concept of contemporary cognitive linguistics, has been the subject of numerous material and theoretical studies. This resulted in a multiplicity of its definitions, which the author of this article analyzed in terms of ontological points present in them. From the point of view of kantianism and constructivism, he tries to engage in a debate with supporters of philosophical and semantic realism who perceive the linguistic image of the world as the property of an objectively existing society.

The recent growing interest in cognitive linguistics, scientific works, monographs and textbooks written in this field are evidence of this. Language levels and trends in their development, structural approach to languages, language and speech issues, functional approach to language units, etc. the problems have begun to be seriously investigated. One such issue is the study of modern cognitive linguistics and lexical-semantic systems. Language is subject to various influences in the process of development. These effects result in changes in different layers of language, including the lexical layer. This process leads to the obsolescence of word meanings in the lexicon, the emergence of new meanings, the expansion of meaning, the narrowing of meaning, the diversification of meaning, and so on. This leads to the fact that the connection between the lexical and semantic meanings of words is also affected; new lexical-semantic word groups appear. The article is rich in quotes from the works of many scholars.

This article is written on a relevant topic. It is a fairly original alloy for exact science, in which rigorous data, formulations, basic conclusions and generalisations are intertwined with interesting and even, to a certain extent, fascinating material. The article is complicated and enriched by a comparative analysis of phytonyms in two languages of different groups. With the apparent dominance of the former, the work is divided into several parts. The first one provides brief information about the terminology itself. The meaning of phytonyms is given according to world standardisation. The author clearly and distinctly clarifies that the phytonymic vocabulary in English and Azerbaijani has gone a long way in development and formation. Moreover, it is emphasised that when analysing phytonyms in the Azerbaijani language, it is necessary to pay closer attention to the etymology of specific words and expressions. In the second part, the colour scheme is differentiated. The third, which logically follows the second, shows its uniqueness in the two named languages. Finally, in the fourth part, various ways of using them are proposed for consideration and linguistic analysis. Having completed the theoretical part, the author proceeds to the practical implementation of the central theme, that is, he subjects the most famous English and Azerbaijani phytonyms in science to differentiation. It is based on individual nominations and so-called locatives. Again, as before, the article’s author focuses on comparing the desired vocabulary in two languages. When analysing the content of phytonyms, the author relies on their characterological features. These are form, time, age, quantity, and quality. Summarising these features, unifying them and bringing them into a single system is possible. As a result, phytonyms in two languages are presented as a fragment of the overall picture of the universe. Their purely biological nature does not obscure strict linguistic analysis. In our opinion, the evident success of the article’s author should be considered in the constantly cited comparisons of facts or phenomena of two perceived sides: biologists and linguists. In some cases (shown in the work), they partially coincide, but they may have completely different estimates. The latter is observed in the case of identification by linguists of purely distinctive features and signs. Individual characteristics follow from this. It is correctly noted that each specialist is looking for his own angle of view on the desired problem, but all conclusions and generalisations are reduced to linguistic analysis. In any case, the overall picture turns out to be clarified.