The concept of "picture of the world" entered science relatively recently. Moreover, the very phenomenon of its existence and reflection in symbolic forms arose at the moment when people began to feel themselves and the environment.
The formation of the concept took place in the conditions of the natural sciences, which contributed to the comprehension of objective natural laws and regular relationships between objects. The term "picture of the world" was put forward by physicists at the border of the 19th and 20th centuries. Subsequently, the definition was borrowed and developed by the humanities. So, for example, the concept of a “linguistic map of the world” appeared.
The study of the phenomenon is carried out from various perspectives. So, for example, a picture of the world can be viewed from the side of the subject creating it (individual personality, national community, scientist, artist, etc.). You can study the subject from the position of the object itself or its fragment, the form of ideas about it (about the object). It is possible to consider the phenomenon in the plane of time, taking into account cultural and historical features.
Modern linguoanthropology is faced with an urgent and highly debatable question about the place that the linguistic picture of the world occupies in this hierarchy. All the above positions, according to scientific and philosophical literary positions, are conceptual. The language picture of the world (NQM) does not have such a status.
The concept itself leads to the concept of V. von Humboldt. According to the German philosopher, language is not a sign of self-generated thought. Humboldt believed that this was precisely the "organ that creates thought." These ideas about the world-building abilities of the language, as well as its significance in the worldview of the people who speak it, were subsequently supported and developed. So, for example, Potebnya (Russian linguist) agreed with the opinion of Humboldt. At the same time, the first one also claimed that language is not a reflection of the prevailing world outlook, but the activity composing it.
Humboldt's followers sought to emphasize the national identity inherent in world-building ability. So, Weisgerber argued that the language of a particular society has a spiritual content. This treasure of knowledge, in his opinion, is a picture of the world for a particular language.
The idea that NQM exists was comprehended within the ethnolinguistic framework by Wharf and Sepir. They believed that linguistic and mental boundaries do not have points of coincidence in the strict sense. In their opinion, cognitive content is not a common thing for all people. Moreover, a specific language contributes to the development of the way of thinking of the people who speak it, and the method of cognition of the world.
Sapir and Wharf came up with their own statement. In their opinion, people see the world through the prism of their native language, and each particular language is a reflection of reality. For this, a method unique to him is used. This hypothesis was supplemented and further developed by scientists such as Alford, James, Carroll and others.
Without a doubt that the linguistic picture of the world has a place to be, some scholars have criticized the concept of Sepir-Whorf. Such figures as Kolshansky, Serebrennikov, Dodd and others expressed their disagreement with the hypothesis. For example, Serebrennikov emphasizes in his writings that language is the result of a reflection of the world, but not a self-sufficient force that creates the world.
Thus, a holistic NQM is a combination of human ideas and knowledge about the environment.
The linguistic picture of the world has the closest connection with the conceptual. Moreover, the relationship is interpenetrating, not borderline.
Many authors do not put the linguistic picture of the world on a par with special ones, saying that NQM precedes all the others and to some extent shapes them.