Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 3

customary to plan their lives, and in polyactive cultures peoples are mobile, sociable and accustomed to doing many things at once, then in reactive cultures the greatest importance is attached to politeness and respect, the ability to listen to the interlocutor silently and calmly 5 . Despite the existing difference in the cultural characteristics of the former imperial states, England and France, it is obvious that the priority of the individual plays a significant role in the French and English linguocultural communities. In addition, some similarities in languages, the historical development of the French and English peoples, the geographical position divided by the English Channel testify to the belonging of the former European colonial states to a single civilization. French and English are classified as Indo- European languages. Despite the fact that the French language is lively, accurate, logical, while the English language is filled with ambiguity and uncertainty, nevertheless, these languages are quite comparable. The peoples of Great Britain and France speak languages that belong to a single European civilization. It seems necessary to emphasize the unity of the civilizational background of these linguocultural communities. On the whole, from the point of view of a linguist, it is more expedient to speak of culture as "a mechanism that creates a set of texts, and texts as the realization of culture." Thus, culture can be viewed as a hierarchy of particular semiotic systems, as the sum of texts and a set of functions correlated with them, or as a device that generates these texts. Culture can be understood, by analogy with an individual memory mechanism, as a kind of collective device for storing and processing information. The semiotic structure of culture and the semiotic structure of memory are functionally similar phenomena located at different levels. It corresponds to the dynamism of culture: being, in principle, a fixation of past experience, it can act both as a program and as an instruction for creating new texts. Semiotic systems of culture create a semiotic space, or cultural space, which appears to the researcher as a multi-layer intersection of various sign systems (for example, language, painting, architecture, theater), which together form a certain layer, with complex internal relationships. In fact, the semiotic space fills the boundaries of culture and is a condition for the work of individual semiotic structures and, at the same time, their generating. In this case, natural language is no exception. Moreover, functioning in the cultural space, it is the main “rotating wheel” of culture. 5 Lewis R.D. Business cultures in international business (From collision to mutual understanding). - M .: "Delo", 1999. Thus, a natural language has its own semiological space, understood as a set of linguistic sign systems. However, any language is a "bundle" of semiotic space, which turns out to be immersed in cultural space, and only because of its interaction with this space, it is able to function. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that an indecomposable working mechanism - a unit of semiosis - should be considered not a separate language, but the entire semiotic space inherent in a given culture, called the semiosphere , according to Yu.M. Lotma n 6 , Thus, the semiosphere is understood as a common cultural and linguistic space. If no natural language can work without being immersed in a cultural space, then no cultural space can exist without a natural language as an organizing core. Consequently, it seems inappropriate to study separately two semiotic spaces, cultural and linguistic. At the same time, the semiosphere is characterized by heterogeneity, since its space can be occupied by various cultural (western and eastern) and subcultural (for example, age, professional, gender) spaces, as well as semiotic systems of languages that are different in nature, which relate to each other in the spectrum from complete mutual translatability to equally complete mutual untranslatability. It is necessary to emphasize the coding structure of sign systems that fill the space of a natural language. According to the close relationship of cultural and linguistic spaces, the coding structures of a natural language are aimed at decoding cultural and linguistic information. In this regard, the linguistic space is presented as a set of semiotic systems of a coding structure aimed at deciphering cultural and linguistic phenomena in a given society and at a given time. At the same time, the texts of different cultures, as a rule, require for their deciphering not a single code, but a complex system of codes, sometimes hierarchically organized, and sometimes resulting from the mechanical connection of various, simpler systems. Within the framework of the dialogue of cultures, it seems possible to consider a person as an emotional one, broadcasting cultural and linguistic codes. Then the obvious question is: what are emotions? The famous American psychologist Carroll E. Izard notes that it is very difficult to identify the essence of the concept of "emotion", and therefore "a laconic definition will not be able to reveal its essence fully " 7 . Nevertheless, he gives a short definition of emotion, which, in his opinion, “can by no means be considered complete ” 8 : “emotion is something that is experienced 6 Lotman Yu.M. Inside thinking worlds. (Human - Text - Semiosphere - History). - M .: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. 7 Izard. K.E. Psychology of emotions / Transl. from English. - SPb.: Publishing house "Peter", 2000. - P.27. 8 Izard. K.E. Psychology of emotions / Transl. from English. - SPb.: Publishing house "Peter", 2000. - P.27. © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 10 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Language, Culture and Emotions in Communication: Semiotic Dimension