Когнитивная лингвистика как развитие лингвистики формальной

Stage 1 
Objectivism of the approach 
External dualism 
Analytical approach 
Describes 
Nominalism of the thing 
Language is disembodied 
Computer paradigm 
Innate ideas 
Image 
Replacement in a triangle 
Syntactics
Reflects the world 
Language is parallel to the
world 
Cognition as the purpose 
Stage 2 
Subjectivism of the approach 
Internal dualism 
Analytical approach 
Interprets
Conceptualism of the symbol 
Language is embodied 
Cultural paradigm 
Intuition 
Symbol 
Interchange in a square 
Semantics
Expresses the world 
Language adapts the world
Knowledge as the purpose 
Stage 3 
“A third way” 
Monism (holism) 
Synthetic approach 
Explains 
Realism of the idea 
Language is biological 
Organic paradigm 
Instinct 
Concept as conceptum
Change in a circle 
Pragmatics 
System 
within 
its 
environment 
Language is transformed 
Self-reflection as the purpose 
Objectivism presumes understanding language outside the subject, as envisioned by Ferdinand de Saussure, “in itself and 
for itself”. Subjectivism maintains a close connection between language (“language is embodied”) and the subject; it exists in 
the subject of speech. The “third way” allows for a median line of connections: language is present in the subject but it also 

---

RUSSIAN LINGUISTIC BULLETIN 1 (17) 2019 
39 
reflects the objective “environment”. External dualism represents an approach, according to which language and thought are in 
direct opposition, while internal dualism means that language is simultaneously a part of cognition and a part of the world. 
Monism (recognition of singleness) presupposes their oneness in their wholeness (holism). There is also a presumed difference 
in the philosophical approach to the object through the forms of language: the first “wave” is nominalistic (notions denote only 
concrete entities); the second “wave” works within the framework of conceptualism (it also accepts existence of general 
notions independent of concrete entities); the third “wave” is (neo)realism (it accepts the objective existence of general notions 
– universals). The general term conceptum here means the “grain of primary sense”, the “impulse” that gives momentum to the 
elements
of the concepts. The triangle means the semantic triangle, which unites the thing, the idea and the sign through a 
synergistic (jointly acting) connection; here it is only possible to replace one set of elements with another. The square is the 
conceptual square with its meaningful forms (image, symbol, concept, and the primary sense of the conceptum), which can 
only interchange, exchange places, while remaining the same. The circle means the psychological circle (the so-called 
Eysenck’s circle), which, when turning, draws a spiral with added new knowledge at every new turn. The meanings of other 
items in the table are clear from their definitions. 
The comparison of items presented in the table shows that the movement of the research thought from the first “wave” 
towards the third, represents the narrowing of the viewpoint from the ontologically real to gnoseologically ideal, with transition 
from the reverse perspective (“from the thing”) to the linear perspective (“from the subject”). Simultaneously, there has been a 
transition from the disconnectedness of the thing to conceptual forms of the objects (from events to facts); from the reflection 
of the world in images - to its explanation with concepts; from the adaptation of language - to its transformation within its own 
environment, etc., and, ultimately, to the progressive development of consciousness “on the wings” of language, which has 
been constantly developing the reflective capabilities of human beings. The most important and fundamental achievement of 
the third wave is the establishment of the “impulse” mechanism in the development of the mental action, i.e. determination of 
the organism (and not the mechanism!) that launches the sequence of semantic movements. According to the authors, these are 
the neuronal chains in the composition of human DNA. This is the extreme view of the “essence” presented in the organic 
form. This is not the final result but just a first approximation to it; my concept of the conceptum as a “first-sense=first-image” 
also requires further improvement (Kolesov, 2012), but unlike the neuronal theory, conceptum is a more ideal unit of 
consciousness, which makes it possible to preserve it within the limits of philosophical realism, while reference to neurons 
returns us back to the domain of nominalism.
It should be borne in mind that all three stages (“waves”) refer to the actions of contemporary cognitive linguistics and 
cover the last fifty years. The meteoric development of cognitive science could seem breath-taking, unless we take into account 
that what we see is not a consecutive development happening in “waves” but a typological chart, summarizing the results 
achieved by different schools of thought and scholarly traditions of American linguistics working simultaneously: N. 
Chomsky, G. Lakoff, R. Langacker, H. Maturana and their contemporaries.
How can these results be compared to the work of Russian linguists? This has become all the more important now because 
of the constant tendency to look up to the innovative western research, typical of many Russian linguists working in the fields 
of Germanic and Romance studies. In this case, a conclusive answer would be hard to give. Creative potential of our scholars 
is high enough, with one difference lying in the fact that they are less formal in their results and are quite realistic (in the 
philosophical sense). The only difference is that western scholars are prone to constant self-refection and they accurately 
register all successive steps of their development (Cf. Lakoff, 2003), while Russian scholars, due to a certain lack of 
organization in their conceptual thinking (in favour of visual-and-symbolic thinking), typical of the Russian mentality, are 
represented by a loosely connected mass of research works, which, however, occasionally prove to be of higher quality than 
their foreign counterparts. It is characteristic of the Russian mentality to avoid final results in the form of “totals” and 
pantologies, since openness of scientific knowledge for further additions is always presumed: science is constantly moving 
forward. 
All three “waves” of western linguistics in the field of cognitive studies can be easily mapped against the results of the 
Russian research – one to one against contensive, cognitive and conceptual linguistics, which are actively developed today. 
Again, without mentioning any names or going into much detail, I will define the differences between them – against the 
background of the three “waves” of western cognitive linguistics. First, however, let me describe the differences between these 
three “waves” of the Russian cognitive studies. 
The successive development of research methods with transition from the concrete to the abstract and then back to the 
concrete has followed two courses: