Advertisement

Genesis of Culture in Space. Conception of Cultural Landscape in Context of Cultural and Philosophic Research

  • Olga LavrenovaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 8)

Abstract

This chapter is devoted to theoretical and methodological questions of the cultural genesis in space in the context of stated problem. The boundaries of the problem field are outlined in terms of semantic components in relationship of culture and space.

The first section addresses noosphere and pneumatosphere as basic concepts for study of the problem.

Modern science studying the interaction of culture and space viewes the scope of manifestations on Earth of a human mind as special noospheric reality. Discovers of noospheric concept Vladimir Vernadsky and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin were the first who noted that human activity has become a geological force. For the purposes of this study it is important to note the characteristics of noosphere, emphasized by founders and modern followers of the concept:
  • Inclusiveness, globality of the noospheric processes.

  • The energy of human culture or cultural biogeochemical energy is considered as an effective force.

  • Availability of the structure, of «nodes» and «threads» in the culture—which we have in terms of this work, are denoted as the nucleus and communication mechanisms of culture.

  • «Geographic memory» of noosphere, retaining in its information layers, knowledge about original landscapes later altered beyond recognition by civilization.

Contemporary «multilevelness» metaphor of the space of noosphere emerged from correlation of different types of spaces created by man. The order of interdependence has different kinds of spaces one above the other, and above them, according to the hypothesis of some scholars (e.g., Lev Gumilyov, Robert Sack)—transcendental organizing impulses which pass through all the «layers» transforming ideas and thinking, and through them—the properties of the earth’s surface.

Availability of axiological dimension—culture as a system of eternal values, culture defines the ideal of noospheric existence.

Today scholars speak about «cruel noosheric reality», however Vladimir Vernadsky himself considered the disruptive, destructive activity as contrary to the idea of the noosphere, and for him this opposition was a guarantee of the continued existence of civilization.

Pavel Florensky’s conception of pneumatosphere as a sphere of the highest human values is important for us as having the same axiological component, which represents itself as one of fundamental dimensions of cultural landscapes in our work.

In the concept of the noosphere and pneumatosphere there is a possibility of a deep understanding of cultural and spatial interaction, which is now unfolding in the statement that the existence of a culture in the geographical space is expressed not only in its physical development, but also in a semantic reconstruction.

In the second section the concept of semiosphere proposed by Yuri Lotman and its subsequent development in modern humanitarian discourse is examined. In the original meaning of semiosphere as a universal unit of semiosis and semiotic space is confined to a single dominant culture and its system of codes, but more recent studies had interpreted it as an environment that enables the emergence and existence of cultures.

In order to confirm the hypothesis put forward by us, we distinguish the following characteristics of semiosphere:

  • Heterogeneity of semiosphere arises due to the uneven flow of the processes of semiosis in culture and, accordingly, an uneven understanding of the external objects, including geographical features. This characteristic has the effect of semantic heterogeneity of geographical space.

  • Updatability of semiotic space of culture in the conceptual and semantic context of the enclusive landscape—a semiotic heterogeneity of geographical space serves as a subject-object frame of culture that provokes and guides the processes of semiosis.

Culture is seen as a universal object of semiotics and subject for semiotisation of geographical space.

From the perspective of the study of space semiotics a model of semiosphere is a complex web of cultural codes and systems of communication. Inside semiosphere any extra-linguistic reality, including the geographical space, is endowed with meaning, and moved to the category of signs. One more language is appearing and it is a code of semiospere—spatial and geocultural.

In the third section the problem of relationship of culture and space is considered in the context of modern humanitarian discourse.

Not so long ago in today’s humanitarian knowledge a recent tendency to explore geographic space and landscape involving the conceptual scope of linguistics and semiotics, and vice versa, to reflect the internal structure of the text, its philosophy through the conceptual scope of geography and landscape science significantly increased.

Analysis of linguistic structures in terms of linguistics and philosophy of language leads to the understanding of the conditionality of certain linguistic structures with a system of spatial representations of culture. As a part of the problem of discourse, which in linguistics is considered extremely wide, the analysis of «discursive event» is conducted in the context of extra-linguistic conditions of its occurrence. There are an inclusive landscape of culture and geo-cultural space among them. On the other hand, metaphorically defined «discourse space» is treated as a special field of cognition.

Among the philosophical studies the concept of «geophilosophy» should be noted, the concept was launched by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Using the metaphor of the ratio of land and territory they defined the subject-object relations of thought. It was an attempt of philosophical comprehension of the processes occurring in the interaction of culture and geographical space, the spatial characteristics of culture existence.

An important step in philosophical theorization about space began with the work of Valery Podoroga, in which geographical space acts as the subject of the structuring of philosophical thought; in particular, the heritage of Friedrich Nietzsche, Søren Kierkegaard, Martin Heidegger, Marcel Proust; Franz Kafka is interpreted as «landscape worlds». As a result, the text takes on the landscape structure—the loci of meaning, semantic fields, territories and their borders and their relationships are singled out in it.

Domestic cultural studies are mostly based on the Yuri Lotman’s conception of culture semiotics and semiosphere. The multilayer spatial picture of the world, posed by diverse human activities and producing images, symbols, signs is considered here. This approach of disclosure of multivalent genesis of sign systems will be used in this study, because semiotics of cultural landscape by definition—is a result of interaction within the territory of very different cultural strata and subcultures.

In foreign sociology and cultural studies the conspicuous landmark is the problem of «producing the space», which is denoted by Henri Lefebvre. In his conception an important role plays functional-existential triad of «perception-reflection-living» of space. Today the construction of space is regarded in the context of social phenomenology of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

A special topic in the modern humanities interdisciplinary research is the geographical space as a factor of existentiality of culture. This direction is formed as a consequence of understanding of geographical constants in the very fabric of culture, the fact that an open system of a culture is opened both to geographic area and to the impact of the constants of the enclosing landscape.

We can assert that the dichotomy—the culture and geographical space serving its extra-cultural frame—was withdrawn in the noospheric and semiospheric reality, combining them into a functional unity—the geo-cultural space. This creates a new synthetic theoretical and methodological approach and allows us to see culture in the relationship with geographical space as a single system.

The forth section is devoted to the concept of cultural landscape where genesis, the structure of the concept is examined in the context of philosophy of culture and humanitarian discourse of geography.

The concept of cultural landscape has developed at the intersection of natural sciences and the humanities. Cultural landscape in geography is originally meant as a natural landscape affected by human impact in varying degrees, as it is understood by Lev Berg, who introduced the term in 1915. Here and below, primarily humanitarian concept will be considered, under which the cultural landscape is interpreted as the result of culture and space interaction, and more as a cultural phenomenon than a phenomenon of space.

Dating back into antiquity the theory of geographical determinism postulated the influence of the environment—of climatic conditions and the nature of the inclusive landscape in the overall structure of culture mentality. Different variations of this concept are used in cultural and ethnological studies, because it is rational. At least, the way of agriculture and settlement patterns of traditional culture are rather rigidly dictated by the natural landscape. On the other hand, the culture shapes the landscape, interfering in its structure harmoniously or destructively. Gradually, it accumulates signs of assimilation, structuring, meaning and—at some point a landscape transforms into a new quality and becomes a phenomenon of culture.

According to the noospheric concept a cultural landscape is in particular formed by involving material and spiritual culture, by the modern (traditional and innovative) cultural heritage (Yuri Vedenin). Noospheric concept of cultural landscape allows us to consider the matter and the information, nature and culture in their functional unity.

In modern humanities a natural component is displaced to periphery of concept of cultural landscape, which is starting to be regarded as a function of culture. The cultural landscape is also regarded as a reflection of culture on geographical environment, i.e. geographical images of space in culture, their genesis and structure are examined (Dmitri Zamyatin).

It seems important to consider the cultural landscape as a process and a result of giving by man of the world sense-value categories, as an ongoing process and a result of semiosis, as a component of semiosphere and a cluster of geo-cultural space.

The morphological structure of the cultural landscape is a derivative of culture mentality. Names of places and the material component of the cultural heritage (monuments, memorials) fix their meanings in space, forming new mental «matrices» of culture bearers of future generations. The cultural landscape has its territorial hierarchy, so it is equally fair to speak about the cultural landscape of locus/place, region, macroregion (country).

References

  1. Abashev, V.V. 2000. Perm as a Text. Perm in the Russian Culture and Literature of the 20th century [Perm’ kak tekst. Perm’ v russkoj kul’ture i literature XX veka]. Perm: Perm University.Google Scholar
  2. Abrantes, R. The Art and Science of Communication. http://www.etologi.dk/English/ENTheAndScienceOfCommunicationBody.htm.
  3. Anferova, N.S. 2009. Study of Space in the Context of Cultural and Anthropological Approach: Terminology Analysis. [Issledovanie prostranstva v kontekste kul’turno-antropologicheskogo podkhoda: terminologicheskij analiz]. In Cultural Landscapes of Russia and Constant Development. Issues of Cultural Landscape seminar 4 [Kul’turnye landshafty Rossii i ustojchivoe razvitie. 4 vypusk trudov seminara «Kul’turnyj landshaft»], 62–65. Moscow: MSU Faculty of Geography.Google Scholar
  4. Appleton, J. 1990. The Symbolism of Habitat: An Interpretation of Landscape in the Arts. University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  5. Babaeva, A.V. 2001. A Human Being in Urban Cultural Space. [Chelovek v gorodskom kul’turnom prostranstve.] In 20th Century Philosophy: Schools and conceptions. Scientific conference for the 60th anniversary of Institute of Philosophy of Saint-Petersburg University (Nov. 2000) [Filosofiya XX veka: shkoly i kontseptsii: Nauchnaya konferentsiya k 60-letiyu filosofskogo fakul’teta SPbGU, 21 noyabrya 2000 g. Materialy raboty sektsii molodykh uchyonykh «Filosofiya i zhizn’»], 26–28. St.Petersburg: Philosophical Society of Saint-Petersburg. Bakhtin, 1979].Google Scholar
  6. Bakhtin, M.M. 1979. Esthetics of Verbal Creative Work [Hstetika slovesnogo tvorchestva]. Moscow: Iskusstvo [Art].Google Scholar
  7. Banse, E. 1928. Landschaft und Seele: Neue Wege der Untersuchung und Gestaltung. Munich, Berlin: R.Oldenburg.Google Scholar
  8. Barkova, E.V. 2003. Space and Time Continuum of Culture [Prostranstvenno-vremennoj kontinuum kul’tury]: Philosophical and Cultural Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. Volgograd.Google Scholar
  9. Bastian, O. 2004. Assessment and Classification of Landscapes—Adopting and Developing Neef’s Landscape Research in Saxony (Germany). Vestnik of Lvov University, Geography series 31: 56–65.Google Scholar
  10. Baudelaire, Charles. 1962. Curiosités esthétiques. L`art romantique et autres oeuvres critiques. Paris.Google Scholar
  11. Belokurov, A.A. 2007. Traditional Cultural Landscape: Structure, Factors, Formation and Development [Traditsionnyj kul’turnyj landshaft: struktura, faktory formirovaniya i razvitiya]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Barnaul.Google Scholar
  12. Berezovich, E.L. 2000. Russian Toponymy in Ethnolinguistic Aspect [Russkaya toponimiya v ehtnolingvisticheskom aspekte]. Yekaterinburg: Urals University Publ.Google Scholar
  13. Berg, L.S. 1915. Subject and Aims of Geography [Predmet i zadachi geografii]. The Russian Geographical Society Herald 51 (9): 463–475.Google Scholar
  14. Bourassa, S.C. 1991. The Aesthetics of Landscape. London and New York: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. 1993. Sociology of Politics (Russian Transl.), ed. N. Shmatko. Moscow: Socio-Logos.Google Scholar
  16. Chaadayev, P.Ya. 1989. Works [Trudy]. Moscow: Pravda [Truth].Google Scholar
  17. Chekalevsky, P.P. 1997. Reflections on Free Arts with Description of Several Works of Russian Artists [Rassuzhdenie o svobodnykh khudozhestvakh s opisaniem nekotorykh proizvedenij Rossijskikh khudozhnikov]. Moscow: Russian Art Academy Research Institute.Cosgrove, 1984, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Totowa NJ: Barnes and Noble Books.Google Scholar
  19. Cosgrove, D.E. 1989. Models, descriptions and imagination in geography. In Remodelling geography, ed. B. MacMillan, 230–244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1980. Capitalisme et shizophrenie, vol. 2. Mille plateau. Paris: Iditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  21. Druzhinin, A.G. 1988. Culture as a Geographical Reality [Kul’tura kak geograficheskaya real’nost’]. Scr.#2515-B88. Rostov-na-Donu.Google Scholar
  22. Druzhinin, A.G. 1999. Theoretical Bases of Geography of Culture [Teoreticheskie osnovy geografii kul’tury]. Rostov-na-Donu: SFEDU.Google Scholar
  23. Druzhinin, A.G., and S.Ya. Suschiy. 1994. Essays on Russian Cultural Geography [Ocherki geografii russkoj kul’tury]. Rostov-na-Donu: SFEDU.Google Scholar
  24. Fitter, C. 1995. Poetry. Space, Landscape: Toward a New Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Florensky, P.A. 1988. The Imiaslavie (Onomatodoxy) as a Philosophical Premise. On the Name of God [Imyaslavie kak filosofskaya predposylka. Imyaslavie kak filosofskaya predposylka]. Studia Slavica Hung 34 (1–4): 40–75. Budapest.Google Scholar
  26. Florensky, P.A. 1993. Analysis of Space and Time in Fiction and Visual Art Works [Analiz prostranstvennosti i vremeni v khudozhestvenno-izobrazitel’nykh proizvedeniyakh]. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  27. Florensky, P.A. 2000. Letter to V. Vernadsky [Pis’mo V.I. Vernadskomu]. In V.I. Vernadsky: pro et contra. St.Petersburg: Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. 1996. The Archaeology of Knowledge (Russian Transl.). Kiev: Nika-Centre.Google Scholar
  29. Gachev, G.D. 1994. National Cosmo-Psycho-Logos [Natsional’nyj kosmo-psikho-logos]. Russian Studies in Philosophy [Voprosy filosofii] 12: 59–78.Google Scholar
  30. Geertz, C. 2004. The Interpretation of Cultures (Russian Transl.). Moscow: Rosspen.Google Scholar
  31. Groth, P., and C. Wilson. 2003. The Polyphony of Cultural Landscape Study: An Introduction. In Everyday America; cultural landscape study after J.B. Jackson, ed. C. Wilson, P. Groth, 1–22. Berckley—Los Angeles—London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gurevich, A.Ya. 1972. Categories of the Medieval Culture [Kategorii srednevekovoj kul`tury`]. Moscow; Art [Iskusstvo].Google Scholar
  33. Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature and Geography of Difference. N.Y.: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Hoffmeyer, J. Biosemiotics: The study of living systems from a semiotic perspective. Encyclopedia of semiotics. New York, S.a. http://www.zbi.ee/~uexkull/biosemiotics/jespintr.htm. Accessed 12 May 2011.
  35. Hudson, R., and D. Pocock. 1978. Image of the Urban Environment. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Iovlev, V.I. 1999. Architectural Chronotope and Sign Meaning [Arxitekturny`j khronotop i znakovost`]. In Semiotics of Space [Semiotika prostranstva]. Works of International Assoc. for Semiotics of Space, ed. A. Barabanov, 103–114. Yekaterinburg: Arkhitekton.Google Scholar
  37. Isachenko, G.A. 2003. Cultural Landscape as an Object of Discourse [Kul`turny`j landshaft kak ob``ekt diskussii]. In Cultural Landscape: theory and practice. Jubilee conference [Yubilejnaya nauchnaya konferenciya «Kul`turny`j landshaft: teoriya i praktika»]. http://kultland2003.narod.ru.
  38. Ivanov, V.V. 2004. The Science of Human Being. Introduction into Modern Anthropology [Nauka o cheloveke. Vvedenie v sovremennuyu antropologiyu]. Moscow: RSUH.Google Scholar
  39. Jakle, J.A. 1987. The Visual Elements of Landscape. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kabo, R.M. 1947. Culture and Human Being in Their Relationship as an Object of Socio-Cultural Geography [Priroda i chelovek v ix vzaimny`x otnosheniyax kak predmet social`no-kul`turnoj geografii]. In Studies in Geography [Voprosy` geografii] 5: 5–32.Google Scholar
  41. Kagansky, V.L. 1989. Does the Cultural Landscape Exist? [Sushhestvuet li kul`turny`j landshaft?]. In Urban Environment [Gorodskaya Sreda], vol. 1: 81–100. Moscow: Scientific Research Institute of Theory and History of Architecture and Urban Planning [VNIITAG].Google Scholar
  42. Kagansky, V.L. 1995. World of Cultural Landscape [Mir kul`turnogo landshafta]. In Science of Culture. Conclusions and Perspective [Nauka o kul`ture. Itogi i perspektivy`] 3: 31–46. Moscow: Informkultura.Google Scholar
  43. Kagansky, V.L. 1997. Landscape and Culture [Landshaft i kul`tura]. In Social Sciences and the Present [Obshhestvenny`e nauki i sovremennost`] 1–2: 134–146, 160–169.Google Scholar
  44. Kagansky, V.L. 2001. Cultural Landscape and Soviet Inhabited Space: A Collection of Articles. Moscow: New Literary Observer.Google Scholar
  45. Kagansky, V.L. 1995a. Culture in the Landscape and the Landscape in Culture. Science of Culture. Conclusions and Perspective 3. Moscow: Informkultura [Infoculture].Google Scholar
  46. Kagansky, V.L. 2002b. Insane Space. Otechestvennye Zapiski [Homeland Notes] 6: 13–26.Google Scholar
  47. Kalutskov, V.N. 2008. Landscape in Cultural Geography [Landshaft v kul`turnoj geografii]. Moscow: New Chronograph [Novyi Khronograph].Google Scholar
  48. Kalutskov, V.N., Ivanova, A.A., Davydova, Y.A., Fadeeva, L.V., Rodionov, E.A. 1998. Cultural Landscape of the Russian North: Pinevezhye, Pomoriye [Kul`turny`j landshaft Russkogo Severa: Pinezh`e, Pomor`e]. Moscow: FMBK Publ. [Izd-vo FMBK].Google Scholar
  49. Kalutskov, V.N., and T.M. Krasovskaya. 2000. Attitudes Towards Cultural Landscape: from Professional to Universal [Predstavleniya o kul`turnom landshafte: ot professional`nogo do mirovozzrencheskogo]. Moscow University Bulletin [Vestn. Mosk. Un-ta] Series 5 Geography 4: 22–28.Google Scholar
  50. Kim, M.S. 2004. Language of South Korean Cultural Space [Yazy`k kul`turnogo prostranstva Yuzhnoj Korei]. Thesis: 09.00.13. Chita.Google Scholar
  51. Kolbovsky, E.Yu. 2003. Landscape in the Mirror of Culturology [Landshaft v zerkale kul`turologii]. In Cultural Landscape: Theory and Practice. Jubilee conference [Yubilejnaya nauchnaya konferenciya «Kul`turny`j landshaft: teoriya i praktika»]. http://kultland2003.narod.ru. Accessed 12 January 2012.
  52. Kristeva, Y. 2000. Bakhtin, the Word, Dialogue and Novel (Russian Transl.). In French Semiotics: From Structuralism to Poststructuralism [Franczuzskaya semiotika: Ot strukturalizma k poststrukturalizmu], 427–457. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  53. Kubryakova, E.S., V.Z. Demyankov, Y.G. Pankratz, and L.G. Luzina. 1996. Concise Dictionary of Cognitive Terms [Kratkij slovar` kognitivny`x terminov]. Moscow: MSU Publ.Google Scholar
  54. Kull, K. 1998. On semiosis, Umwelt and semiosphere. Semiotica 120, 3/4: 299–310.Google Scholar
  55. Lefebre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Leontiev, A. 1983. Selected Psychological Writings [Izbranny`e psixologicheskie sochineniya], vol. 2. Moscow: Pedagogy [Pedagogika].Google Scholar
  57. Lotman, Yu.M. 1992. Selected Articles [Izbranny`e stat`I] vol.1, Articles on semiotics and typology of culture [Stat`i po semiotike i tipologii kul`tury`]. Tallinn: Alexandra.Google Scholar
  58. Lotman, Yu.M. 1996. Inside the Thinking Worlds: Human Being. Text. Semiosphere. History [Vnutri my`slyashhix mirov: Chelovek. Tekst. Semiosfera. Istoriya] Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture [Yazy`ki russkoj kul`tury`].Google Scholar
  59. Lotman, Yu.M. 1997. Letters of 1940–1993 [Pis`ma 1940–1993]. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture [Yazy`ki russkoy kul`tury`], Koshelev.Google Scholar
  60. Lotman, Yu.M. 1998. On Art [Ob iskusstve]. St.Petersburg: Art [Iskusstvo].Google Scholar
  61. Lotman, Yu.M. 2000. Semiosphere. St.Petersburg: Art [Iskusstvo].Google Scholar
  62. Lotman, Yu.M. 2002. Preliminary Notes [Predvaritel`ny`e zamechaniya]. In History and Typology of Russian Culture [Istoriya i tipologiya russkoj kul`tury`], ed. Yu. Lotman. St.Petersburg: Art [Iskusstvo].Google Scholar
  63. Lotman, Yu.M. 2002. History and Typology of Russian Culture [Istoriya i tipologiya russkoj kul`tury`]. St.Petersburg: Art [Iskusstvo].Google Scholar
  64. Mandelbrot, B. 2002. The Fractal Geometry of Nature (Russian Transl.). Moscow: Computer Research Institute [Institut komp`yuterny`x issledovanij].Google Scholar
  65. Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982. The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman W.H.&Co.Google Scholar
  66. Mechnikov, L.I. 1995. Civilization and the Great Historical Rivers [Civilizaciya i velikie istoricheskie reki]. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
  67. Mitchell W.J.T. (ed.). 1994. Landscape and Power. Transl. by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Muravykh, A.I. 1997. Philosophy of Ecological Security. Moscow: Russian Civil Service Academy Publ. [Izdatel’stvo Russkoy Akademii Gosslujby].Google Scholar
  69. Nazaretyan, A.P. 1991. Intellect in the Universe: Origins, Development, Perspective [Intellekt vo Vselennoj: istoki, stanovlenie, perspektivy`]. Moscow: Earth Interior [Nedra].Google Scholar
  70. Nikolova, A.A. 2002. The Category of Space, its Language Representation and Linguistic Description [Kategoriya prostranstva, ee yazy`kovaya reprezentaciya i lingvisticheskoe opisanie]. In Problems of cognitive and functional-communicative description of Russian and Bulgarian languages [Problemy` kognitivnogo i funkcional`no-kommunikativnogo opisaniya russkogo i bolgarskogo yazy`kov], 59–92. Shumen: Shumen University.Google Scholar
  71. Nizovtsev, V.A. 2007. On History of Development of Modern Anthropogenic Landscape Study [Ob istorii stanovleniya sovremennogo antropogennogo landshaftovedeniya]. General and Practical Priceology [Obshchaya i prikladnaya tsenologiya] 3: 32–37.Google Scholar
  72. Olwig, K.R. 1996. Recovering the Substantive Nature of Landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 86 (4): 630–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pellegrino, P. 1999. The Sense of Space (Russian transl.). In Semiotic of Space [Semiotika prostranstva]. Works of International Assoc. for Semiotic of Space, ed. A. Barabanov, 69–92. Yekaterinburg: Arkhitekton.Google Scholar
  74. Podoroga, V. 1995. Expression and Meaning: Landscape Worlds of Philosophy: S. Kierkegaard, F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, M. Proust, F. Kafka [Vy`razhenie i smy`sl: Landshaftny`e miry` filosofii: Seren Kirkegor, Fridrix Niczshe, Martin Xajdegger, Marsel` Prust, Francz Kafka]. Moscow: Ad Marginem.Google Scholar
  75. Portnov, A.N. 1990. Noosphere and Semiosphere. In Philosophic Origins of V.I. Vernadsky’s Science of Biosphere and Noosphere [Filosofskie istoki ucheniya V.I. Vernadskogo o biosfere i noosfere]. Ivanovo.Google Scholar
  76. Prigogine, I.R. 1991. Philosophy of non-equilibrium [Filosofiya nestabil`nosti]. Russian Studies in Philosophy [Voprosy` filosofii] 6: 46–57.Google Scholar
  77. Puchkov, M.V. 1999. Semiotic Interconnections of Architecture and Language [Semioticheskie vzaimosvyazi arxitektury` i yazy`ka]. In Semiotic of Space [Semiotika prostranstva]. Works of International Assoc. for Semiotic of Space, ed. A. Barabanov, 115–153. Yekaterinburg: Arkhitekton.Google Scholar
  78. Rodoman, B.B. 1980. Self-development of Cultural Landscape and Geobionic Patterns of its Formations [Samorazvitie kul`turnogo landshafta i geobionicheskie zakonomernosti ego formirovaniya]. In Geographic Sciences and Region Planning [Geograficheskie nauki i rajonnaya planirovka] 11,  117–128. Moscow: Thought [Mysl].Google Scholar
  79. Rodoman, B.B. 1995. Esthetics of Landscape [Estetika landshafta]. In Science of Culture. Conclusions and Perspectives [Nauka o kul`ture. Itogi i perspektivy`] 3. Moscow: Infoculture [Informkultura].Google Scholar
  80. Rodoman, B.B. 1999. Territorial Areas and Nets. Essays on theoretical geography [Territorial`ny`e arealy` i seti. Ocherki teoreticheskoj geografii]. Smolensk: Oecumene [Oykumena].Google Scholar
  81. Russian cultural space: Linguocultural dictionary [Russkoe kul`turnoe prostranstvo: Lingvokul`turologicheskij slovar`]. 2004. Issue 1. The Zoomorphic images; Precedent names, Precedent texts, Precedent statements [Zoomorfny`e obrazy`; Precedentny`e imena; Precedentny`e teksty`; Precedentny`e vy`skazy`vaniya], ed. Brilyova I.S., Volskaya N.P. Gudkov D.B., Zakharenko I.V., Krasnykh V.V. Moscow: Gnozis.Google Scholar
  82. Sauer, K. 1925. Morphology of Landscape. University of California. Publications in Geography 2 (2): 19–54.Google Scholar
  83. Savitsky, P.N. 1927. Russia, a Special Geographic World [Rossiya—osoby`j geograficheskij mir]. Paris: Eurasia Publ. [Evrazijskoe knigoizdatel`stvo].Google Scholar
  84. Savitsky, P.N. 1997. Continent of Eurasia [Kontinent Evrazia]. Moscow: Agraf.Google Scholar
  85. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky, P.P. 1927. What a Region Study Scholar Should Know about Geography of a Human [Chto dolzhen znat` kraeved o geografii cheloveka]. Leningrad: Brockhaus and Efron [Brokgauz i Efron].Google Scholar
  86. Shama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  87. Shishin, M.Yu. 2003. Noosphere, Culture, Cultural Landscape [Noosfera, kul`tura, kul`turny`j landshaft]. Novosibirsk: Russian Academy of Sciences Publ.Google Scholar
  88. Shkuropat, S.G. 2004. Geographical Factor in Culturology Concepts in Late 19th—Early 20th Centuries [Geograficheskij faktor v kul`turologicheskix koncepciyax koncza XIX—nach. XX vv.]. Ph.D. Dissertation, St.Petersburg.Google Scholar
  89. Shor, Yu.M. 2003. Culture as Emotional Experience (Cultural Humanities) [Kul`tura kak perezhivanie (Gumanitarnost` kul`tury`)]. St.Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg Humanitarian University of trade unions [SPBGUP].Google Scholar
  90. Shteins, V.V. 1988. A Human and a Cultural Landscape [Chelovek i kul`turny`j landshaft]. In Intellectual Resources of Science and Technical Progress Development [Intellektual`ny`e resursy` razvitiya nauchno-texnicheskogo progressa]. Abstracts. Nalchik, 23–27 May, 1988, 191–194. Moscow.Google Scholar
  91. Silanyan, K.G. 2002. Space Environment as a Socio-cultural Phenomenon [Prostranstvennaya sreda kak sociokul`turny`j fenomen]. Ph.D. Dissertation. Krasnodar.Google Scholar
  92. Smirnov, G.S. 2000. Philosophical and Culturological Problems in Development of Noosphere Conscience [Filosofskie i kul`turologicheskie problemy` stanovleniya noosfernogo soznaniya]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Moscow.Google Scholar
  93. Smirnov, G.S. 2008. Semiosophy of Noosphere Universum: Noosphere and Semiosphere in Global Discourse [Semiosofiya noosfernogo universuma: Noosfera i semiosfera v global`nom diskurse]. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State University [Ivanovskij gosudarstvenny`j universitet].Google Scholar
  94. Spencer, J.E., and W.L. Thomas. 1969. Cultural Geography: An Evolutionary Introduction to Our Humanized Earth. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  95. Spencer, J.E., and W.L. Thomas. 1978. Introducing Cultural Geography. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  96. Stolyarova, T.F. 1999. Geographic Determinism and Socio-natural History [Geograficheskij determenizm i socioestestvennaya istoriya]. In Landscape and Ethnos [Landshaft i e`tnos], 61–69. Moscow: Institute of Oriental Studies Russian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  97. Streletsky, V.N. From Anthropogeography to Cultural Geography: Succession in Development and New Research Directions [Ot antropogeografii k kul`turnoj geografii: preemstvennost` v razvitii i novy`e issledovatel`skie napravleniya]. In Cultural Landscapes of Russia and Sustainable Development. Cultural Landscape seminars 4 [Kul’turnye landshafty Rossii i ustojchivoe razvitie. Chetvertyj vypusk trudov seminara «Kul’turnyj landshaft»], ed. T. Krasovskaya, 23–29. Moscow: MSU Faculty of Geography.Google Scholar
  98. Svirida, I.I. 2007. Landscape in Culture as Space, Image and Metaphor [Landshaft v kul`ture kak prostranstvo, obraz i metafora]. In Landscapes of Culture. Slavic world [Landshafty` kul`tury`. Slavyanskij mir], 11–42. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.Google Scholar
  99. Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1992. The Divine Milieu (Russian transl.). Moscow: Renaissance [Renesans].Google Scholar
  100. Tishkov, V.A. 2003. Requiem for Ethnos. Socio-cultural Anthropology research [Rekviem po e`tnosu. Issledovaniya po social`no-kul`turnoj antropologii]. Moscow: Science [Nauka].Google Scholar
  101. Tolstaya, S.M. 1996. Ethnolinguistics [Etnolingvistika]. In Institute of Slavic and Baltic Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences. 50 Years [Institut slavyanovedeniya i balkanistiki. 50 let], 235–248. Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
  102. Toporov, V.N. 1989. The Space on Culture and Meetings in it [Prostranstvo kul`tury` i vstrechi v nem]. In East—West. Research. Translations. Publications [Vostok—Zapad. Issledovaniya. Perevody`. Publikacii], 6–17. Moscow: Sciense [Nauka].Google Scholar
  103. Toporov, V.N. 1997. The Metaphor of the Mirror in Research of Interlinguistic and Ethnocultural Contacts [Metafora zerkala pri issledovanii mezh``yazy`kovy`x i e`tnokul`turny`x kontaktov]. Slavic Studies [Slavyanovedenie] 1: 5–15.Google Scholar
  104. Tsyvyan, T.V. 1990. Linguistic Grounds of the Balkan World Model [Lingvisticheskie osnovy` balkanskoj modeli mira]. Moscow: Sciense [Nauka].Google Scholar
  105. Turovsky, R.F. 1998. Cultural Landscapes of Russia [Kul’turnyi landshaft Rossii]. Moscow: Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
  106. Tutyunnik, Y.G. 1990. Landscape as a Structure [Landshaft kak struktura]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 2: 116–122.Google Scholar
  107. Tutyunnik, Y.G. 1998. Understanding of the Landscape [Ponimanie landshafta]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 2: 30–38.Google Scholar
  108. Tutyunnik, Y.G. 2004. On the Origin of the Word ‘Landscape’ and its Original Meaning [O proisxozhdenii i pervonachal`nom znachenii slova «landshaft»]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 4, 17–31.Google Scholar
  109. Vedenin, Y.A. 1988. Art as One of Factors of Cultural Landscape Formation [Iskusstvo kak odin iz faktorov formirovaniya kul`turnogo landshafta]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 1, 17–24.Google Scholar
  110. Vedenin, Y.A. 1990. Problems of Cultural Landscape Formation and its Research [Problemy` formirovaniya kul`turnogo landshafta i ego izucheniya]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
  111. Vedenin, Y.A. 1997. Essays on Geography of Art [Ocherki po geographii iskusstva]. St.Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin Publ.Google Scholar
  112. Vedenin, Y.A. 2004. Information Paradigm of Cultural Landscape [Informacionnaya paradigma kul`turnogo landshafta]. In Cultural Landscape as an Object of Legacy [Kul`turny`j landshaft kak ob``ekt naslediya], 68–81. Moscow: Heritage Institute.Google Scholar
  113. Vedenin, Y.A., Kuleshova, M.S. 2001. Cultural Landscape as an Object of Cultural and Natural Legacy [Kul`turny`j landshaft kak ob``ekt kul`turnogo i prirodnogo naslediya]. In Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Izvestiya RAN]. Geographical Series/Regional Research of Russia 1, 7–14.Google Scholar
  114. Vedenin, Y.A., Kuleshova, M.S. 2004. Cultural Landscapes as a Legacy Category [Kul`turny`e landshafty` kak kategoriya naslediya] In Cultural Landscape as an Object of Legacy [Kul`turny`j landshaft kak ob``ekt naslediya], 13–16. Moscow: Heritage Institute; St.Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin Publ.Google Scholar
  115. Vernadsky, V.I. 1991. Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon [Nauchnaya my`sl` kak planetnoe yavlenie]. Moscow: Science [Nauka].Google Scholar
  116. Von Maltzahn, K.E. 1994. Nature as Landscape. Dwelling and Understanding. Montreal and Kingston, London, Buffalo: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Vorobyeva, E.A. 2007a. Cultural Landscape as a Factor of Cultural Being (according to ethnic world image of East Lake Baikal region) [Kul`turny`j landshaft kak faktor by`tijnosti kul`tury` (na primere e`tnicheskoj kartiny` mira Vostochnogo Zabajkal`ya)]. Doctoral Dissertation, Chita.Google Scholar
  118. Vorobyeva, V.A. 2007b. Cultural Bordering Regions as a Form of Comprehension of Cultural Being. In Proceedings of the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia 14 (37), Masters Notes Journal, 32–35. St.Petersburg.Google Scholar
  119. Watson, J.W. 1970. Image geography: the myth of America in the American scene. Br.J. Advmt.Sci. 27: 71–79.Google Scholar
  120. Wierzbitcka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitivies. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag.Google Scholar
  121. Zamyatin, D.N. 2004a. Meta-Geography: Space of Images and Images of Space [Meta-geografiya: prostranstvo obrazov i obrazy` prostranstva]. Moscow: Agraf.Google Scholar
  122. Zamyatin, D.N. 2004b. Russian Manor: Landscape and Image [Russkaya usad`ba: landshaft i obraz]. Man [Chelovek] 6: 35–44.Google Scholar
  123. Zamyatin, D.N. 2006. Culture and Space. Modeling of Geographical Images [Kul`tura i prostranstvo. Modelirovanie geograficheskix obrazov]. Moscow: Sign [Znack].Google Scholar
  124. Zinchenko, V.P. 1998. Psychological Pedagogy [Psikhologicheskaya pedagogika]. Samara: Samara Press House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences RASMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations