The paper presents the problems of the world modeling by a man and coordination of meanings between different people in the process of communication. The model of the world (as well as the subject field model) consists of three components: the language one and two multimodal — individual and socialized. The world model of every human being is a unique structure and, despite some their similarity for members of the same society, requires constant synchronization during communication of people, which is realized in the process of dialogue. In addition to information mechanism (synchronization by key concepts of subject areas) intentional mechanism (determination) is involved in the dialogue, and this mechanism is realized through personalities of communicating subjects. The work of these mechanisms is disclosed through the example of collective activity and the quality of communication literacy. Communication literacy of people, as shown in the work, essentially depends on the linguistic component, i.e. on the ability to work with text in a natural language. This means any person himself should be able to write qualitatively and work with meanings, as well as to understand meaning of texts written by others. It is especially important in the context of wide spread of different network structures on IT and telecom platforms (from social and expert networks of “collective intelligence” to instant messaging networks).
Author page: Alexander Kharlamov
Presentation of specific information in a human brain as a hierarchy of events, dictionaries, images of different occurrence frequencies and of different modalities is a model of the human world, consisting of three components – the individual multimodal right-hemispheric (right-handers) and two socialized left-hemispheric – multimodal and linguistic, which to some extent are (all) isomorphic to each other. Perhaps, a person’s mentality is determined by his model of the world. Maybe, comparing the world models (their linguistic components) of individuals it will be possible to understand the degree of their mentality closeness. Therefore, we can try to interpret the mentality of the texts’ authors on the basis of their texts. Comparing texts of the members of different “network” communities (closeness inside, difference between them), we’ll be possibly able to find out the principles of people’s unification in these communities.