Ways of studying linguistic personality in modern linguistics. On the concept of a linguistic personality in modern linguistics The structure of a linguistic personality
Anthropocentrism marks a tendency to put a person at the forefront in all theoretical premises of scientific research and determines its specific perspective (Kubryakova 1995: 212). One of the specific manifestations of anthropocentrism can be considered the emergence of the category YL (Karaulov, 1987).
The introduction into the research paradigm of the subjects of textual activity, the speaker or writer (author) and the listener or reader (recipient), - a postulate that unites all pragmatic developments - contributed to the movement of the interests of linguists from the taxonomy of linguistic units to the area of functional characteristics of language and textual activity, that is, to the field of language learning in action. Subjectivity, being one of the fundamental properties of a natural language, is expressed in the purpose of its units to realize the subjectivity of text activity and text (Baranov, 1993: 7-8).
The arguments motivating the viability of this category (its cognitive value) are two properties of its internal semantic structure: (1) the ability to metamorphose, to reconcile extremes, and (2) a hybrid character (i.e., the synthesis of psychological and linguistic knowledge (Lapon, 1995). : 260-261)). The very fact of the emergence of dual disciplines (anthropolinguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmalinguistics, communicative linguistics, etc.) means that, on the one hand, linguistics is expected to clarify the issues of anthropology, psychology, sociology, but, on the other hand, beyond recourse to it is impossible for these sciences to describe some of the relevant properties of language. Attempts to more and more deeply comprehend the phenomenon of LP have led to the emergence of new research areas - psychiatric literary criticism, within which writers are divided into types in accordance with the worldview that is expressed in their works (Belyanin, 1996); semiosociopsychology, which focuses on sign communication as an exchange of textually organized semantic information (Dridze, 1996); biolinguistics - a systemic-analytical semiological field of study of speech, mental and mnemonic capabilities and abilities of a person, with their simultaneous philosophical coverage (Nechiporenko, 1996); linguistic personology, formed on the philosophical concepts of personology, personalism and the theory of YL (Neroznak, 1996); speech science as a special area of speech research in all its diversity of communicative and sociocultural manifestations (Shmeleva, 1996); contact linguistics (Shamne, 1997).
An interesting fact is that the formation of the cognitive approach includes psycholinguistics in the circle of studies related to the establishment of the nature and types of knowledge involved in the use of language, problems of linguistic consciousness and IL, worldview, etc. (Zalevskaya, 1998: 81-94).
The opinion that for any phenomenon of language its psychological source must be found, that the classification of language means must proceed from their mental substrates, the derivation of observable linguistic data from the fact that the language was created "by the measure" of a person - this opinion was expressed in the world and national linguistics repeatedly (Vezhbitskaya, 1997; Vinokur, 1993; Humboldt, 1985; Dyunfort, 1997; LES, 1990; Puzyrev, 1995; Vossler, 1966; Shakhovsky, 1987, 1998; Cheif, 1975, etc.). Language as an ideal system, which serves as one of the ways of storing information and expressing the self-consciousness of the individual, makes it possible for its linguistic cognition. Turning to language is considered today as the easiest access to consciousness, primarily because all explanations about any objects appear to a person in the form of their verbalized description (Kubryakova, 1992: 11).
The antinomy of “language in a person” and “language outside a person” - language as an individual phenomenon and language as a social phenomenon (Humboldt) - within the framework of the anthropological paradigm, manifests itself in the conditional allocation of LP and speech personality. In this case, the “linguistic personality” reflects the approach to the language as a holistic, potential sign system, the “speech / speaking personality” is embodied in an individual who actualizes the abstract language system in the process of textual activity. Note that the term YL is more universal in use as a dialectical combination of the collective / general (language-system) and the individual / individual (language-speech).
Within the framework of a new discipline - linguistic personology, according to V.P. Neroznak, - polylectic (multi-human) and idiolect (private human) personalities are opposed, and in fact - ethnosemantic personality, in the understanding of S.G. Vorkachev (Vorkachev, 1996; 1997) and individual , speech personality as a member of a certain society. The basis for the selection of a speech, idiolect personality is the study of a person as a carrier of speech. The term YL is used to describe generalized characteristics that unite groups of people by age, education, professional attribute (YL of a writer, doctor, scientist), according to the type of speech culture, the carrier of which it is: , colloquial, slang, folk speech types (Sirotinina, 1998: 3; Kochetkova, 1999). So, for example, M.M. Bakhtin used 2 variants of the “speech subject”: 1. As a kind of “author”, a collective carrier (people, nation, profession, social group, etc.), obtained by transforming languages, dialects, linguistic (functional) styles into “worldviews (or some linguistic or speech attitudes), into “points of view”, into “social voices”, etc., produced by an artist who creates typical or characteristic statements of typical characters (Bakhtin, 1997: 329 ) and 2) as a real speaker, a real author of a concrete utterance (Bakhtin, 1997: 333-334).
Taking into account the symbolic mediation of human consciousness, A.G. Baranov proposes the concept of a semiological personality, which, as an umbrella term, includes both linguistic and speaking personalities. The latter are in a relationship of complementarity and reflect different approaches to the definition of the functions of the language: based on the language as an integral sign system, or - from the act of communication.
LP as an object of linguoculturology, determined by the organization of its own cultural space, allows nominations of the following order: Russian LP (Karaulov, 1988), LP of Western and Eastern linguocultures (Snitko, 1998: 88-89), ethnosemantic personality, that is, the basic national language fixed in the lexical system - cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, which is a timeless and invariant part of the structure of a speech personality (Vorkachev, 1996: 16-17); dictionary personality modeled on the basis of dictionary data (Karasik, 1994); modal personalities embodying types of national character, for example, an English aristocrat, a Russian intellectual, a German philosopher (Pivovarov, cited in Karasik, 1996: 5); a polylectic (multi-human) YL, personifying a common language, the history of which can be represented as a change of linguistic states (individuations) (Neroznak, 1996: 113).
The most common cultural and historical types of LP as an object of philology are the poet and the rhetorician, distinguished in accordance with the types of literature - poetry and prose (Romanenko, 1995: 25-26).
Linguistic personology (Neroznak, 1996) identifies two main types of LP in relation to a particular human LP: 1) standard LP, reflecting the average literary processed norm of the language and 2) non-standard LP, which deviates from the established language samples - the “tops” and “bottoms” of the culture of the language (Neroznak, 1996: 114). Writers, masters of artistic speech, creating texts of culture, elite YL can be attributed to the “tops” of linguistic culture, first of all (Sirotinina, 1998).
In science, there is an opinion that the study of not only the language, but also the psyche of an average person (“anthropology of averageness”) does not provide any key to understanding individuality (Remneva, Komlev 1997: 53). The richer the person, the more difficult it is to fit into the classification framework. Not a single dimension exhausts the personality, especially if we are talking about an extraordinary person, an “aesthetic person”, a “charismatic personality”, that is, a morally charming personality that captivates others, whether in everyday life, art or politics (Stepanov, 1997: 590). It is in speech that “the antinomy of uniqueness and stereotype is most clearly manifested, which underlies the differences between the actual communicative role of the speaker and the communicative one, but having an aesthetic additive” (Vinokur, 1993: 53).
Note that for the theory of literary communication, it was essential to discover a certain parallelism between the properties of a literary text (hereinafter referred to as CT) and the speech act in general. The language of artistic prose differs from the spoken language primarily in the communicative situation in which a message is transmitted from one subject to another. According to M.M. Bakhtin, the emergence of all literary conditional characters of authors, narrators and addressees is due to the fact that the secondary genres of complex cultural communication (novels, dramas, scientific research of all kinds, etc.), as a rule, are games play various forms of primary verbal communication. But the most complex and multi-component work of the secondary genre as a whole is a single real statement that has a real author and addressees really represented by this author (Bakhtin, 1997: 204).
E.V. Paducheva believes that the narrative is characterized by an inferior communicative situation, in which the Speaker and the Listener are replaced respectively by the Narrator and the Reader (Address) (Paducheva, 1995: 41-42). Note that the usefulness and adequacy of communication, communicative success depend not only on the type of communication, but also on the communicative competence of the participants in communication, the basic components of which, according to D.I. Izarenkov, are considered to be linguistic, subject and pragmatic competences (Izarenkov, 1990: twenty). A.G. Baranov considers cognitive competence to be the leading one, in which others appear as variants (Baranov, 1997), for example, “literary or poetic competence” (Korte, 1991: 14). The inferiority of the “non-canonical communicative situation” is thus compensated for by the cognitive competence of the writer. This idea can be illustrated by the following statement by V. Dilthey: “... From all sides one hears that there is more psychology hidden in Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth than in all psychology textbooks taken together” (Dilthey, 1996: 29). It is no coincidence that one of the functions of fiction is the naming of human emotions; it can be defined as a depository of the names of emotions and emotional situations (Shakhovsky, 1998: 82). It is in this property of fiction that its eternal value lies.
The approach to the consideration of LP from linguodidactic positions, abstracting from mental mechanisms, allows us to consider LP as a native speaker, and not a carrier of the mechanisms of speech acts (Bogin, 1984). G.I. Bogin distinguishes the levels of development of SL (the level of correctness, the level of internalization, the level of saturation, the level of adequate choice and the level of adequate synthesis), which make it possible to build a list of its readiness for speech activity.
In the world science of language, the concept of YAL is associated primarily with the name of Y.L. Weisgerber, who gives his understanding of a person’s linguistic ability as the ability to retain life impressions in the widest possible volume with the help of signs, process them, correlate them with others, and thus gradually acquire a common idea of these phenomena, to own the world, being distracted from private impressions. The application and impact of this linguistic ability is further revealed in the form of thinking and speaking taking place in a linguistic form, an action based on linguistic reflection (Weisgerber, 1993: 121).
In the domestic science of language, the category of LP as a set of "human abilities and characteristics that determine the creation of speech works (texts)" was filled with special theoretical content, primarily thanks to the works of Yu.N. Karaulov (Karaulov, 1987). Yu.N. Karaulov clarifies the well-known thesis of F. de Saussure that a language system is hidden behind each text and offers a different interpretation of this well-known postulate: "Behind each text there is a linguistic personality who owns the language system.") able to create and perceive speech works (texts) that differ "a) in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, b) in the depth and accuracy of reflection of reality, c) in a certain target orientation (Karaulov, 1989: 3).
This approach to PL is dictated by a special set of research heuristics. The focus is not on meaning as such, but on “the meaning of the speaker” and “the meaning of the listener”. Depending on the purpose of the study, the structure of the LP can be considered in two aspects. From the point of view of the proper linguistic, which can be characterized as a point of view predominantly ascertaining, calculating and classifying, YL, as shown by Yu.N.
From a pragmastylistic point of view, which can be characterized as a predominantly interpretive point of view, aimed at interpreting the data obtained in the course of linguistic analysis, LP is the sum of hierarchically organized “aspects of the Self”, namely: the aspect of “physico-biological”, social, emotional , cognitive (“intellectual”), axiological (“value-need”), ethical, aesthetic and others (Suran, 1994: 2). There is also a bibliopsychological point of view put forward by N.A. Rubakin, according to which in the study of book business it is necessary to follow this path: “through the study of reading and the reader to the study of works of the word, and only after that to the study of authors” (Rubakin, cited in: Belyanin, 1988: 37).
The concept of YAL is exploited in a variety of ways. It effectively "works" in a certain system of concepts, and outside of it the explanatory power is reduced. Note that the study of thinking and speaking, taking place in a linguistic form, is impossible without the concepts of language / speech ability, which is understood as the area of virtual elements (Bally), something like potential knowledge (Chomsky), a psychophysiological mechanism that ensures mastery and command of the language (Leontiev) , the generality of language endowments (Vossler).
In our opinion, the concept of language ability, by which A.M. Shakhnarovich understands a certain system of elements (phonetic, lexical, grammatical and semantic components) and the rules for their implementation, has greater explanatory power in the range of problems of speech activity. Language ability is a dynamic formation, a mechanism that ensures the use of "psychological tools". The very process of using these tools, the cultural rules for their choice and situational organization are outside the proper linguistic ability. They belong to the communicative competence, which, together with the language ability, constitutes the LL (Shakhnarovich, 1995: 213, 214, 223).
From the point of view of a holistic-systemic substrate approach (A.V. Puzyrev), which provides for the division of the internal structure of the LP into personality 1) mental (thinking), 2) linguistic (speaking a certain language), 3) speech (speaking) and 4) communicative ( communicating), let's present our understanding of the YL of the author of a work of art in four forms: 1 - a person as the owner of not only verbal-logical, but also figurative thinking, which is characterized by unintentionality and emotional richness; representative of a certain mentality; 2 - a person who knows the language, which is the unity of language as an abstract language system and language as an activity; 3 - a person whose individuality and uniqueness is manifested in a literary text (as a statement), which is an actualized selection of language means; 4 - a person with a high potential of cognitive competence; leading the eternal dialogue in the understanding of M.M. Bakhtin, which takes place between the author of the work and the hero, between the author, the reader and the addressee.
When creating a work of art, YL, due to the specifics of its activity, is forced to play many social roles and can be represented as “the sum of social roles played by a given member of society” (Maslova, 1997: 94). In addition, in a literary speech act one can always notice the author's desire not only to impose his thesaurus on the reader, i.e. to give a certain amount of information about the world, but to inspire him with those value orientations that he, the sender of speech, the artist, the creator, the individual and the member of society, considers important for other people and, thereby, for himself.
Thus, the introduction of the category “linguistic personality” has set before linguistics, along with traditional and non-trivial tasks: the goals, motives and tasks of human speech activity are part of the proper linguistic research. LL is characterized not only by the degree of language proficiency, but also by the choice - social, personal - of language means of various levels, as well as the vision of the world, determined by its language picture. The antinomy “language-speech” turns out to be devoid of its inherent antagonism. With a sufficiently developed invariant of the structural representation of this category (see the works of Yu.N. approaches and aspects are practically inexhaustible and always relevant.
In accordance with the objectives of our study, we defined the author's creative LP as a subject with a linguistic ability, which, together with cognitive competence and, refracted through the prism of (creative) aesthetic textual activity, allows him to create works of art (texts).
In the next paragraph, we will discuss the relationship between the concepts of "YL" and "author".
a dictionary that includes artificial words and phrases, substitution of the semantics of confessional terms, attributing new and additional meanings to ordinary words, ignoring the national and cultural perception of lexemes.
As a result, recruits feel initiated into exceptional language, vocabulary, and new knowledge. They begin to feel more comfortable communicating with members of the organization, and eventually, as soon as this language becomes part of their daily speech, they feel inhibited in communicating with people outside the cult.
Bibliography
1. Big explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / comp and ch. ed. S. A. Kuznetsov. SPb.. 1998. 1536 p.
2. Efremova, T. F. New Dictionary of the Russian Language. Explanatory and derivational: in 2 vols. M., 2000. T: 1. A-O. 1213 p.
3. Grachev, G. Personality manipulation: organization, methods and technologies of information and psychological impact / G. Grachev, I. Melnik [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.auditorium. ru/books/4047.
Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2013. No. 37 (328). Philology. Art history. Issue. 86. S. 117-120.
ABOUT APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE PERSONALITY
O. V. Eftor
A review of key approaches to the study of linguistic personality in various scientific fields is made. The effectiveness of using the citation index of scientific articles to track the dynamics of works on the problem of linguistic personality is substantiated.
Key words: linguistic personality, rational model of linguistic personality, citation index.
The problem of linguistic personality stands at the origins of the science of language. Since ancient times, attempts to establish the relationship between language and personality have been traced: they have come down to us in the form of statements by ancient thinkers (for example, “The character of a person is known in speech” (Plato), “What a person is, such is his manner of speaking” (Mark Fabius Quintillian) and etc.).
Looking at the problem in retrospect. it is necessary to note the interest in the problem of linguistic personality in the works of W. von Humboldt, K. Vossler, M. M. Bakhtin.
The linguo-philosophical concept of the spirit of the people of Wilhelm von Humboldt reflects the influence of language on a person and his culture, as well as on the culture of the whole people. A person cannot develop or think without language, since language is a collective phenomenon. Humboldt considered language not just an external means of communication between people, but also argued that language is inherent in the very nature of man and is necessary for him to develop spiritual forces and form a worldview. IN.
von Humboldt opposed the individual and the collective in language, argued that the idea of the national spirit and the individual are inseparably linked: “speech activity, even in its simplest forms, is a combination of individual perceptions with the general nature of man. Language unites the individual with the universal in such a miraculous way that it is equally correct to say that the whole human race speaks the same language, and each person has his own language.
Humboldt's ideas were continued by K. Vossler. He and his followers studied the individual language and style of writers, considering it in terms of aesthetic criteria.
The neogrammarists, in turn, called for the psychophysical study of man and his language. They abandoned the study of the collective in language and recognized only the language of the individual, dependent on their changing mental activity.
F. de Saussure considered personality as an individual, transformed through a specific language. According to the linguist, language is social in nature and is a tool for expressing attitudes towards the surrounding reality, which ensures the interaction of a person and the outside world.
A large number of articles by E. Sapir and his seminar at Yale University "The Impact of Culture on Personality" not only attracted the attention of anthropologists to the individual in his cultural environment, but also had a noticeable impact on the theory of psychoanalysis. According to
E. Sepira, language, culture and personality merge into a single whole; language is a "symbolic key to behavior" because experience is largely interpreted through the prism of a particular language and is most evident in the relationship of language and thought.
The term "linguistic personality" itself was introduced into scientific circulation much later, in the 1930s of the XX century. This is merit
V. V. Vinogradova. In his book "On the Language of Fiction", the scientist approached the concept of a linguistic personality by studying the language of fiction. He explored the artistic linguistic personality from both sides: the personality of the author and the personality of the character. V. V. Vinogradov noted that “a monument is not only one of the works of collective linguistic creativity, but also a reflection of the individual selection and creative transformation of the language means of its time in order to aesthetically valid expression of a vicious circle of ideas and emotions. And the linguist cannot free himself from the question of how the transforming personality can use the linguistic treasure that it can have. The first descriptions of specific linguistic personalities also belong to V. V. Vinogradov.
In the light of the presence of a large number of approaches to the study of linguistic personality, it seems necessary to classify them according to scientific areas. The most important, in our opinion, are those that single out and justify a rational structure or model.
Yu. N. Karaulov introduced the concept of a linguistic personality into wide scientific use. Under the linguistic personality, he understands the totality of the abilities and characteristics of a person.
ka, causing the creation and perception of speech works (texts), which differ in a) the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, b) the depth and accuracy of reflection of reality, c) a certain target orientation. The structure of a linguistic personality consists of three levels: 1) verbal-semantic (for a native speaker, normal knowledge of a natural language, and for a researcher, a traditional description of formal means of expressing certain meanings); 2) cognitive or thesaurus (units of this level - concepts, ideas, concepts that form a "picture of the world", reflecting the hierarchy of values); 3) pragmatic (goals, motives, interests, attitudes) [Ibid.]. According to D.V. Anikin, this model turned out to be in demand both by linguodidactic and linguoculturological approaches, since it represents a certain generalized type of personality, while many specific personalities can be considered as its variations.
G. I. Bogin notes that the linguistic personality
This is a person considered from the point of view of his readiness to perform speech acts, to create and accept works of speech. He considers the linguistic personality as one of the components of the existence of a language, those who appropriate the language, that is, those for whom language is speech. The model of the linguistic personality of G. I. Bogina was developed within the framework of the linguodidactic approach. The peculiarity of this model is that its development occurs from level to level. Based on the stages of development, G. I. Bogin distinguishes five levels: 1) the level of correctness (follows the requirement: “Using the language, you must use this particular language with its elementary rules”); 2) the level of internalization (there is a slowdown in the transmission of information, “that is, poor speed”, associated with an insufficiently internalized plan of a speech act, with insufficient integrity of the idea of an upcoming private statement; 3) the level of saturation (wide use of “wealth of language”); 4) the level of adequate choice (the subject of assessments of the adequacy of the choice of units of the speech chain is, as a rule, not the whole text, but one sentence); 5) the level of adequate synthesis (includes achievements and shortcomings in the production or in the synthetic perception of the whole text with all the complex complex of its inherent
means of communication of subject content and means of expressing the spiritual content of the personality of the communicant himself).
Within the framework of the linguoculturological approach, the linguistic personality was considered
S. G. Vorkachev. This concept refracts philosophical, sociological and psychological views on a socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person that make up his qualitative certainty. Within the framework of this approach, the linguistic personality is divided into three types. The first type is a “speech personality”, which defines a person as a native speaker in terms of his ability to speech activity, that is, a complex of psychophysical properties of an individual that allows him to produce and perceive speech works. The second type is a “communicative personality”, which is understood as a set of features of the verbal behavior of a person using language as a means of communication. Third type
- “a dictionary or ethnosemantic personality, or a basic national-cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, fixed mainly in the lexical system, a kind of “semantic identikit”, compiled on the basis of worldview attitudes, value priorities and behavioral reactions reflected in the dictionary.
At the present stage, other approaches to the study of linguistic personality are also presented: psycholinguistic (A. A. Vorozhbitova, S. A. Sukhikh, V. P. Timofeev), cognitive (N. N. Boldyrev, N. A. Kobrina) , gender (O. L. Kamenskaya), linguo-personological (E. V. Ivantsova, V. P. Neroznak, Z. I. Rezanova) and linguo-socionic (N. D. Golev, L. M. Komissarova). Nevertheless, the authors working on the problems of linguistic personality within the framework of these approaches rely on the works of Yu. N. Karaulov, G. I. Bogin and S. G. Vorkachev in their works. This serves as proof that at the moment the degree of the most effective development of the problem of linguistic personality remains within the framework of linguocultural and linguo-didactic approaches. Within the framework of other approaches, the problem of linguistic personality is less studied, but is gradually gaining momentum. New approaches bring a new focus to the problem and the term itself.
At the moment, it seems possible to track the dynamics of scientific work on
the problem of linguistic personality. In this case, it can be characterized as an "approach to the study of approaches." Such an “approach to the study of approaches” seems to be possible due to the presence of bases and indexes of citation of scientific articles. According to the dynamics of citation, the main approaches can be distinguished. The most valid ones are: 1) Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI), the purpose of which is to create a national bibliographic database of scientific periodicals; 2) Google Academy (English GoogleScholar), a freely available search engine that provides full-text search for scientific publications of all formats and disciplines (the Google Academy index includes most of the peer-reviewed online journals in Europe and America of the largest scientific publishers); 3) WebofKnowledge
A search platform that combines abstract databases of publications in scientific journals and patents, including databases that take into account the mutual citation of publications, which is developed and provided by ThomsonReuters; 4) Scopus - a bibliographic and abstract database and a tool for tracking the citation of articles published in scientific journals. The database indexes scientific journals, conference proceedings and serial book publications.
The analysis of the RSCI resources allows you to get acquainted with the statistics, see the citation index of leading scientists and compare with others. The analysis data showed the following quantitative results: Yu. N. Karaulov - 3393, G. I. Bogin - 511, S. G. Vorkachev - 1004. did them, in what direction the work was carried out.
The Google Academy made it possible to narrow the search and expand the resource of works, as well as highlight the leading works on the problem of linguistic personality. For a more rational study and prioritization, it seems reasonable to arrange the results in a table:
Yu. N. Karaulov Russian language and linguistic personality 1992
V. I. Karasik Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse 1252
S. G. Vorka-chev Linguistics, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of an anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics 262
Yu. N. Karaulov Russian Linguistic Personality and the Tasks of its Study 175
V. I. Karasik Religious discourse// Linguistic personality: problems of linguoculturology and functional semantics 57
M. V. Lyapon Linguistic personality: the search for a dominant 42
V. I. Shakhovskiy Linguistic personality in an emotional communicative situation 42
G. I. Bogin Modern linguodidactics: textbook 32
A. M. TTTyakh-narovich Language personality and language ability 28
The revealed results, in our opinion, greatly facilitate the search for answers to questions.
the question of what constitutes a review of the main fundamental works on the problem of linguistic personality. Moreover, they clearly show the relevance of a certain number of works over a fairly large period of study of this problem.
Bibliography
1. Anikin, D. V. Study of the linguistic personality of the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years: dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 2004. July: http://www.textology.m/artide.aspx?aI=139.
2. Bogin, G. I. The model of linguistic personality in its relation to the varieties of texts. L., 1984. 310 p.
3. Vinogradov, VV On the language of artistic prose. M., 1930. 175 p.
4. Vorkachev, S. G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics // Philol. science. 2001. No. 1. S. 64-72.
5. Humboldt, V. Selected works on linguistics. M., 1984. 400 p.
6. Karaulov, Yu. N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., 2010. 264 p.
7. Sapir, E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M., 1993. 656 p.
Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2013. No. 37 (328).
Philology. Art history. Issue. 86. S. 120-122.
O. N. Yaroshenko
THE SPECIFICITY OF TRAINING TRANSLATORS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE IN THE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
The features of the professional training of translators at the university are discussed. It is argued that the personality-activity approach allows creating conditions for self-actualization and personal growth of future translators, the formation of their activity through partner, subject-subject relations with other participants in the educational process.
Keywords: professional competence of a translator, activity and personal approaches, intercultural communication, communicants of professional activity.
The professional competence of a translator is not only knowledge of two languages, but also the ability to find and correlate the communicative means of these languages, taking into account the characteristics of a particular act of communication, as well as knowledge
principles, methods and techniques that create such a skill. The profession of an interpreter involves the implementation of a complex type of mental activity that requires specific knowledge, skills and abilities.
Language is a sociocultural phenomenon that a person forms in the course of his life. At present, linguistics and sociolinguistics are dominated by the concept of “irreducibility” of the phenomenon of language to its codified version. As a result, the problems of the functioning of those forms of language that are considered "stylistically reduced" are being studied more actively - these are colloquial, slang, slang language means. The language of the blogosphere can also be attributed to such forms of language.
Linguists consider the most important problem of determining what specifically opens up the ability for mutual understanding in people, how the base of methods and techniques necessary in the process of solving this problem is accumulated. These facts led to the fact that the concept of slang, in particular the language of the blogosphere, belongs to the field of applied linguistics.
R. O. Yakobson reasonably argued that linguistics needs to explore language processes from all sides: modern, ancient, dead. The modern Internet is a fertile field for the study of language processes, since the virtual world is a real "melting pot" in which the continuous development of the language and its transformation takes place. That is why modern linguistic research so often includes an analysis of the language of the blogosphere.
First of all, this is due to the unified direction of linguistics of our time, the essence of which is to explore the language and its result - speech, together with another object of study - the linguistic personality. Thus, when studying the problem of Internet slang, linguists not only consider the linguistic features of this type of jargon, but also reveal the features of the process of forming a native speaker.
In addition, in the course of studying the language of the blogosphere, it is possible to trace the processes of word formation and vocabulary changes, to study the processes of language development from the point of view of dynamics.
Speech is a super-complex multi-level complex, the main function of which is to establish relations between people and communities, and, with its more developed manifestation, the creation of culture and society as a whole.
The most necessary directions of the speech process: Subject-content;
actual; Emotional.
The listed aspects of speech have different values. Thus, they form a system with a certain hierarchy.
The highest level belongs to the subject-content direction, which, as a rule, is called a message. In any individual communication process, several of the above-mentioned areas are involved at once, but only one of them is considered dominant. Based on the observations, we can conclude that the communication process is motivated by the need to exchange messages between people. This motivation is considered the foundation of a formed and actively functioning speech process30.
Emotional and factual directions, on the contrary, can only be inside the speech process, moreover, for different reasons. The emotional direction is formed only by the subject of the message, or by an emotionally evaluating basis, in this case this direction becomes the carrier of direct verbal reflection31.
The concept of "linguistic personality" is a linguistic term. Firstly, it is a characteristic of a native speaker based on the analysis of the texts he created in terms of how exactly he used the system tools of the language to represent his perception of the world around him and solve any problems. Secondly, "linguistic personality" is a way of describing the language ability of a person, information about a person, represented by his written text.
Modern anthropocentric linguistics puts this concept at the center of its activities. "Linguistic personality" is a person in speech dynamics, in his ability to perform speech acts.
The term "linguistic personality" was introduced into linguistics by V. V. Vinogradov.
Developing such concepts as "the image of the author" and "artistic image", the scientist investigated the relationship between the "linguistic personality", the artistic image and the image of the author in a work of art. The first description of a specific linguistic personality was also made by V. V. Vinogradov (chapter "Experiments in rhetorical analysis" in the collection "On the language of artistic prose").
An analysis of the functional features of an "uncodified" language is usually carried out from the point of view of the socio-linguistic features of the language subsystem under consideration, in our case, the slang of the domestic blogosphere.
The main socio-linguistic feature of the language of the blogosphere is its belonging to the so-called "network" culture. This culture is essentially a subculture, that is, a relatively independent part of the universal culture.
The concept of subculture is used by such sciences as sociology, anthropology and cultural studies. The content of this concept lies in the designation of a closed community or social group, which differs from the prevailing majority in such aspects as behavior, manners, appearance, clothing, value system, language. Therefore, it is natural that bloggers, as representatives of the subcultural environment, have their own language.
Many forums on the Internet where bloggers communicate have one thing in common: they all abound in specific, “jargon” words and expressions. Strange words and definitions, anglicisms, neologisms, incomprehensible abbreviations and abbreviations - all this is a characteristic feature of the blogosphere: "epicfail", "cap", "bgg", "LOL", "PPKS" - all these phrases denote different degrees of emotional attitude of bloggers to commented topic.
Actually, there is nothing exceptional in this - any Internet community, and even any community of interest, as a rule, has its own slang words that belong exclusively to them. But, as a rule, slang words and phrases are used only and exclusively in a "special" environment.
But the same cannot be said about the language of the blogosphere - active Internet users of all ages use it not only in their forums and among like-minded people, but also use it in everyday life, often causing irritation among other participants in communication, those who are “off topic” .
The modern period is characterized by certain features in the cultural and educational sphere: the expansion of the educational space, direct links between Russian and Western cultures, the desire for self-realization. Thanks to all these circumstances, bloggers have every opportunity to create and update lexical units related to the English language, information technology, financial and economic activities, etc.
In modern social groups, we can observe the phenomenon of a mobile system, which includes a variety of subcultural formations (professional, territorial, status, etc.), and each has its own specific vocabulary, its own slang.
A characteristic feature of modern subcultures is their openness. Now, as a rule, it is natural for any modern, educated person to belong to several subcultural communities at once - for example, a blogger, a computer engineer, a former student, a car enthusiast, a hockey fan, etc. At the same time, everyone who once blogged on social networks remembers and understands the jargon of bloggers.
The virtual linguistic personality of the blog discourse subject includes a real linguistic personality and has special communicative competencies that ensure communication in a virtual environment - it realizes itself in a virtual discourse, forming a new dynamic image with a high degree of freedom. The behavior of a virtual linguistic personality is characterized by polyidentity, and the structure of its self-presentation includes such components as self-characterization and influence.
A linguistic personality in the process of communication faces the problems of self-identification. On the one hand, this is due to the contradiction between the globalization of society, when each participant in the communicative situation is interchangeable and becomes an average representative of the masses, and on the other hand, a surge of individualism, the desire to preserve identity, individualization of the personal principle, increased attention to one's own "I".
The identity of a linguistic personality is a key element of subjective reality, it is formed by social processes and supported by social relations.
One of the clear and systematic ideas about the structure of a linguistic personality was given by Yu.N. Karaulov: He distinguishes three levels at which the linguistic personality is considered:
On the verbal-semantic; On the cognitive; On motivational.
The verbal-semantic level is the consideration of words and their meanings. Cognitive level - consideration of concepts. At the highest, motivational level, the question of the purpose for which the author of the text uses words and concepts, the main idea of the text is considered.
Such an idea of the structure of a linguistic personality and the methods of linguistic analysis is no longer purely linguistic, but is at the intersection of psychology and linguistics.
Worldview is a purely philosophical concept, but it can also be considered from a linguistic point of view, as a feature of a linguistic personality, characterized by a combination of its cognitive and pragmatic levels. The values of a person, his picture of the world, interact with the motives of behavior and are manifested in the text produced by the personality.
According to the definition of Yu.N. Karaulov, a linguistic personality is “a set of human abilities and characteristics that determine the creation and perception of speech works (texts) by him, which differ:
- a) the degree of structural and linguistic complexity,
- b) the depth and accuracy of the reflection of reality, c) a certain target orientation.
So the features of a person's worldview manifest themselves in the features of the text generated by him.
The interpretation of a linguistic personality is not only a linguistic aspect of the psychology of a personality as a whole, but a full-fledged representation of a personality that includes all aspects - from the mental and social to other components reflected in the linguistic discourse.
The realization of the linguistic personality of a blogger, as a virtual personality, takes place in the conditions of virtual communication.
In a virtual communicative environment, the identification of a blogger implies the separation of his external and internal "I". The linguistic personality of a blogger on the Internet is an alienated representation of his real personality. Virtual images of subjects imply a change in social categorization, national-cultural, age, socio-economic and even gender characteristics. The most striking illustration of this situation is the history of the Internet meme "Crimean woman, daughter of an officer." The history of this meme is as follows: on March 9, 2014, during a discussion of a YouTube video on “Ukrainian” topics, a user under the pseudonym “Dmitry Kakegotam” left a comment written in the feminine gender: “Believe me !!! I myself am a Crimean, I have been living here for 50 years. Officer's daughter. Just believe me - not everything is so simple with us ... Nobody wants a separation!!!”
The expression "Crimean woman, daughter of an officer" has become a meme and a source for various jokes and parodies addressed to pro-Western and pro-Ukrainian commentators.
The behavior of a person in a virtual environment is built according to certain strategies that are implemented at the verbal-semantic, cognitive and motivational levels.
Basically, four types of communication strategies are used: informational; regulatory-influencing; emotive; interpretive.
The information communication strategy of blogging is based on the presentation of facts and the transmission of knowledge of the blog author and his readers. Therefore, dialogue with such a strategy implies the transfer of factual information. To implement an information-reasoned strategy in journalistic blogs, the following forms are used: news, message, announcement, announcement, instruction. A distinctive feature of this type of records is the information provided without e? comments by the author. As a rule, this type of strategy prevails in the blogs of journalists who do not have personal entries, or in hybrid blogs (a media representative maintains a personal blog containing signs of a corporate one).
The main goal of the regulatory-influencing strategy is to cause the desired changes in the environment. This happens through the impact of various information on the consciousness of subscribers.
The main goal in the implementation of the emotive strategy is to express one's feelings, emotions, assessments, communicative intentions, preferences, moods in relation to the speech manifestations of the addressee and the communicative situation as a whole. Under the interpretive strategy is meant a certain interpretation of events, statements about the event, analysis, interpretation of facts, expression of opinion, judgments. In other words, an interpretive communicative strategy allows not only reflecting the events of the surrounding reality, but also interpreting them in accordance with the author's value system.
Dominant in blogs is an interpretive communication strategy. However, as a rule, communication strategies are rarely presented in their pure form. In the blogosphere, several strategies are being used at the same time. Therefore, after interpreting, an emotive strategy is most often used, which allows adding additional expression and emotionality to the text, which is of particular importance in blogs, where subjectivity plays a large role. Information and regulatory-influencing strategies are used less frequently.
Introduction of the concept language personality in linguistics is associated with a change in the scientific paradigm of humanitarian knowledge, when the anthropocentric, functional paradigm came to the place of the dominant scientistic system-structural paradigm. It became possible to say that language belongs primarily to a person who is aware of himself and his place in the world, his role in practical activities and linguistic communication. There was a transfer of the center of gravity predicted by Ferdinand de Saussure from the study of the system of language to the study of speech. The term "linguistic personality", first introduced into scientific circulation by V.V. Vinogradov, began to actively function in linguistics in the 80-90s of the twentieth century. The linguistic personality as an object of linguistic research allows us to consider in interaction all the properties of the language, take into account both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Linguistic personality is that cross-cutting idea that permeates all aspects of language learning and at the same time destroys the boundaries between disciplines that study a person, since one cannot study a person outside of his language.
Term "linguistic personality" includes the following definitions: 1) any native speaker of a particular language, characterized on the basis of an analysis of the texts produced by him in terms of using the systemic means of this language in these texts to reflect his vision of the surrounding reality (picture of the world) and to achieve certain goals in this world; 2) the name of a complex method for describing the language ability of an individual, connecting the systemic representation of the language with the functional analysis of texts. A linguistic personality is understood as a person as a native speaker, taken from the side of his ability to speech activity, that is, a complex of psychophysical properties of an individual that allows him to produce and perceive speech works - essentially a speech personality. A linguistic personality is also understood as a set of features of the verbal behavior of a person using language as a means of communication - a communicative personality. And, finally, a linguistic personality can be understood as a basic national-cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, fixed mainly in the lexical system, a kind of “semantic identikit”, compiled on the basis of worldview attitudes, value priorities and behavioral reactions reflected in the dictionary - dictionary personality, ethnosemantic.
The need for the concept of "YAL" manifested itself in the 80s. 20th century The priority of its development and use belongs to Russian. linguistics, although the idea of considering the existence and functioning of a language in connection with its human carrier has always been inherent in linguistics. The historical prerequisites for the emergence of the corresponding theory can be traced back to the 19th century. From the works Wilhelm von Humboldt, who interpreted language as “an organ of a person’s inner being” and as an expression of the spirit and character of a people, a nation, a generalized understanding of Ya. l. And as a representative of the genus Homo sapiens, who knows how to combine thought with sound and use the results of this activity of the spirit for communication, and as a national linguistic personality, i.e. a native speaker - the aggregate representative of his people. Already at the beginning 20th century Shakhmatov Alexey Alexandrovich argued that “real being has the language of each individual; the language of the village, city, region, people turns out to be a well-known scientific fiction.
The term Ya. L. was first used Vinogradov Viktor Vladimirovich in 1930 in the book "On Fiction Prose". V. V. Vinogradov, setting as his task the study of the language of fiction in all its complexity and diversity, sees the elementary level, the starting point in the study of this immense whole - in the individual speech structure. Vinogradov has 2 lines of studying YAL: the line of the “image of the author” and the line of the “artistic image as a linguistic personality”. V. Vinogradov, in developing the concept of a linguistic personality, did not follow a psycholinguistic or linguodidactic path, he set himself the task of studying the language of fiction in all its complexity and diversity, he saw an elementary level, an elementary cell, the starting point in the study of this immense whole - in individual speech structure. In the work of 1927, in connection with the study of the "speech systems" of literary works, V.V. Vinogradov focuses on the linguistic personality. He writes: “The problems of studying the types of monologue in fiction are closely related to the question of the methods of constructing “artistic and linguistic consciousness”, the image of a speaking or writing person in literary work. The monologue attaches itself to a face whose definitive image fades as it is brought closer and closer to the all-encompassing artistic self of the author. But a purely image of the author's "I", which is nevertheless the focus of attraction of linguistic expression, does not appear. Only in the general system of verbal organization and in the methods of "depicting" the artistic-individual world does the outwardly hidden face of the "writer" emerge. In this judgment, V.V. Vinogradov laid the main idea of the relationship and interaction in the work of a linguistic personality, artistic image and the image of the author.
The very concept of linguistic personality began to develop G. I. Bogin, he considered the model of Ya. L., in which a person is considered from the point of view of his "readiness to produce speech acts, create and accept works of speech." Introduced this concept into wide use Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov who believes that YAL is a person who has the ability to create and perceive texts that differ:
a) The degree of structural and linguistic complexity;
b) Depth and accuracy of reflection of reality;
c) Certain target orientation.
In modern scientific knowledge, the background against which the formation of the theory of I. l. took place is characterized by the following features:
· the common man was placed in the focus of interest in all humanitarian fields;
the success of psycholinguistics in the study of human language ability;
drawing attention to the problem of the ways in which a language exists (language-system, language-text, language-ability).
To date, there are various approaches to the study of LP:
1. Polylect (many-human) and idiolect (particularly human) personalities (V. P. Neroznak);
2. elite YL (O. B. Sirotinina, T. V. Kochetkova);
3. Russian language personality (Yu. N. Karaulov);
4. language and speech personality (Yu. E, Prokhorov, L. P. Klobukova);
5. semiological personality (A. G. Baranov);
6. ethnosemantic personality (S. G. Vorkachev);
7. dictionary language personality (V. I. Karasik);
8. linguistic identity of Western and Eastern cultures (T. N. Snitko);
9. emotional YL (V. I. Shakhovsky), etc.
Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov identifies the following levels of organization and study of a linguistic personality:
1) zero (or verbal-semantic) - structural-linguistic, reflecting the degree of proficiency in ordinary language;
2) linguocognitive (thesaurus) - includes concepts, large concepts, ideas. The stereotypes at this level are stable standard connections between descriptors, which are expressed in generalized statements, definitions, aphorisms, winged expressions, proverbs and sayings, from all the richness and diversity of which each linguistic personality chooses, “appropriates” exactly those that express “ eternal” truths for her;
3) pragmatic (or motivational) - higher in relation to the linguo-cognitive level of analysis of a linguistic personality, it includes the identification and characterization of motives and goals that drive its development, behavior, control its text production and ultimately determine the hierarchy of meanings and values in its linguistic picture of the world.
By I. l., thus, potentially any native speaker is understood, and the way of presenting (studying and describing) I. l. involves the reconstruction of its structure on the basis of the texts produced and perceived by it.
b) as a typical representative of a given linguistic community and a narrower speech community included in it;
c) as a representative of the human race, an essential feature of which is the use of sign systems and, above all, natural language.
K I l. As a linguistic object, researchers come in different ways:
psycholinguistic - from the study of the psychology of language, speech and speech activity in normal and altered states of consciousness;
· linguodidactic - from the analysis of the processes of language learning and linguistic ontogenesis (ontogenesis - transformations undergone by a person from birth to the end of life).
· purely philological - from the study of the language of fiction.
The researches connected with I. l. are characterized by wide application of experimental methods:
ü associative experiments;
ü analysis of text retellings;
ü analysis of speech recordings of one day of the individual;
ü records of the child's personality;
ü analysis of the activities of interpreters and translators;
ü analysis of statistical self-observations of a person over his written speech.
A complete description of a linguistic personality suggests:
1. a description of the semantic-combat level of its organization;
2. reconstruction of the language model of the world, or the thesaurus of a given person;
3. identification of its vital or situational dominants, attitudes, motives, which are reflected in the processes of generating texts and their content, as well as in the features of the perception of other people's texts.
The linguistic personality model proposed IN AND. Karasikom relies on the scientific metaphor of Wilhelm von Humboldt - the language circle: “Since the perception and activity of a person depend on his ideas, his attitude to objects is entirely determined by the language ... each language describes around the people to which it belongs, a circle, from which you can only get out in the event that you enter another circle.
The concept of V.I. Karasika is based on the inseparable connection of ethno-cultural and socio-cultural principles in a person, on the one hand, and individual characteristics, on the other. Thus, under the linguistic personality of V.I. Karasik understands a communicative personality - "a generalized image of a carrier of cultural-linguistic and communicative-activity values, knowledge, attitudes and behavioral reactions".
When studying a linguistic personality from the standpoint of psychology and psycholinguistics, attention is fixed on the mental component of linguistic consciousness. According to T.N. Ushakova, linguistic consciousness appears in two essences: as a mental phenomenon of non-material nature and as a material phenomenon realized in spoken or recorded speech. IN AND. Karasik, based on the analysis of the constants of linguistic consciousness and communicative behavior of the individual, considers it possible to single out a new area of integrative humanitarian knowledge - axiological linguistics.
In the course of the development of linguistics, the problem of linguistic personality was discussed repeatedly, which was accompanied by a complication of this concept. In the first approximation, it was just about a person, then about the speaker / listener model, and, finally, about the three-level model of a linguistic personality developed by Yu.N. Karaulov. The latter model served as a stimulus for the development of the theory of linguistic personality, for example, for the emergence of the concept of a secondary linguistic personality, proposed by I.I. Khaleeva.
Thus, the study of linguistic personality inevitably involves in the sphere of interests of linguists those issues that unite specialists who study a person from different points of view.
Let us consider in more detail the structure of the linguistic personality. A linguistic personality in the conditions of communication can be considered as a communicative personality - a generalized image of a carrier of cultural-linguistic and communicative-activity values, knowledge, attitudes and behavioral reactions. Karasik V.I. considers a linguistic personality as a communicative personality, in the structure of which one can single out the value, cognitive and behavioral plans of this concept.
The value plan of a communicative personality contains ethical and utilitarian norms of behavior characteristic of a certain ethnic group in a certain period. These norms are enshrined in the moral code of the people, reflect the history and worldview of people united by culture and language. The moral code of the people in the language is expressed only partially. The linguistic (and more broadly communicative) indices of such a code include universal utterances and other precedent texts that constitute a cultural context understandable to the average native speaker, rules of etiquette, communicative strategies of politeness, and evaluative meanings of words.
The norms of behavior have a prototypical character, i.e. we store in memory knowledge about typical attitudes, actions, expectations of responses and evaluative reactions in relation to certain situations. At the same time, we allow possible deviations from the behavioral norm, and such deviations always contain an additional characteristic of the participants in the communication. Finally, there are behavioral taboos, the violation of which causes a negative reaction of the participants in communication and stops communication. For example, in the English-speaking environment, there are variant ways to end the dialogue, in particular, several typical speech clichés are presented for the informal end of communication. The specificity of English-speaking communication is, as you know, in the choice of a regional variant of behavior: what is acceptable for the British may be unacceptable for the Americans, and vice versa. In the US, you can often hear the phrase " Have a nice (good) day!" At the same time, the British dictionary contains a note that such a phrase is appropriate, first of all, when the seller communicates with the buyer: the seller wishes the buyer all the best, saying goodbye to him. Thus, this speech formula contains for the British additional status-role information about the participants in communication.
The cognitive (cognitive) plan of a communicative personality is revealed by analyzing the picture of the world that is characteristic of it. At the level of cultural and ethnic consideration (it is in relation to this level that one usually speaks of a linguistic personality), subject-content and categorial-formal ways of interpreting reality are distinguished, which are characteristic of the bearer of certain knowledge about the world and language.
The behavioral plan of a communicative personality is characterized by a specific set of intentional and involuntary characteristics of speech and paralinguistic means of communication. Such characteristics can be considered in the sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic aspects: in the first, speech indices of men and women, children and adults, educated and less educated native speakers, people speaking native and non-native languages are distinguished, in the second - speech act, interactive, discursive moves in natural communication of people. The behavioral stereotype includes many distinctive features and is perceived holistically. Any deviation from the stereotype (for example, an overly wide smile) is perceived as a signal of unnatural communication, as a sign that the communication partner belongs to a foreign culture, or as a special circumstance requiring clarification.
The proposed aspects of the communicative personality are correlated with the three-level model of the linguistic personality (verbal-semantic, cognitive, pragmatic levels), proposed by Yu.N. Karaulov. The difference is that the level model assumes a hierarchy of plans: the highest is the pragmatic level (pragmaticon), which includes goals, motives, interests, attitudes and intentionality; the middle level (semanticon) is a picture of the world, including concepts, ideas. concepts and reflecting the hierarchy of values; the lowest level (lexicon) is the level of natural language proficiency, the level of language units.
A linguistic personality exists in the space of culture, reflected in the language, in the forms of social consciousness at different levels (scientific, everyday, etc.), in behavioral stereotypes, in objects of material culture. The individual in SL is formed through an internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings.
Experiences in the reconstruction of YL are contained in the works of Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov on the language of N. V. Gogol and F. M. Dostoevsky, in his book “On Fiction Prose” (M.-L. language personality ”(M., 1987) (discourse of Shokhov - a character in A. Pristavkin’s novel“ Town ”), etc. Dictionaries of the language of writers, as well as other dictionaries, for example, are directly related to the reconstruction of YAL. "Motivational Dialect Dictionary", which reveals the methods of linguistic reflection of a naive speaker - an average linguistic personality of a dialect carrier - in search of a motivator for the internal form of a word.
Thus, the study of linguistic personality inevitably involves in the sphere of interests of linguists those issues that unite specialists who study a person from different points of view. Further development of the theory of linguistic personality, the study of the individual's speech is a promising scientific direction. The ability and opportunity to know a person through his language opens up new horizons in science.
Bibliography
1. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of artistic prose. - M., 1980.
2. Karasik V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse [Text] / V.I. Karasik, Research Laboratory "Axiological Linguistics". – M.: GNOSIS, 2004. – 389 p.
3. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality [Text] / Yu.N. Karaulov. - M.: "Nauka", 1987. - 261 p.
4. Ushakova T.N. Human speech in communication. - M., 1989.
As you know, a person, a person, creates culture and lives in it. It is in the personality that the social nature of a person comes to the fore, and the person himself acts as a subject of socio-cultural life.
There are other concepts of personality. Thus, the well-known American psychologist A. Maslow sees a person as the being of inner nature, which is almost independent of the external world and which is the initial prerequisite for any psychology, and life in accordance with inner nature is considered as the cause of mental health. The formation of a personality, from the point of view of A. Mas-low, is a movement towards an ideal, which is a person who has fully realized himself. He writes: “A human being, in order to live ... needs a frame of reference, a philosophy of life, a religion (or a substitute for religion), and they
he needs almost as much as sunlight, calcium or love.
Personality should be considered in the perspective of the cultural tradition of the people, ethnos (Piskoppel, 1997), because for the birth of a person in a person, a cultural and anthropological prototype is needed, which is formed within the framework of culture.
The categories of culture are space, time, fate, law, wealth, labor, conscience, death, and so on. They reflect the specifics of the existing system of values and set patterns of social behavior and perception of the world. This is a kind of coordinate system that forms a linguistic personality.
The first appeal to the linguistic personality is associated with the name of the German scientist I. Weisgerber. In Russian linguistics, the first steps in this area were made by V.V. Vinogradov, who developed two ways of studying linguistic personality - the personality of the author and the personality of the character. A. A. Leontiev wrote about the speaking personality. The very concept of a linguistic personality began to be developed by G.I. Bogin, he created a model of a linguistic personality, in which a person is considered from the point of view of his "readiness to perform speech actions, create and accept works of speech." This concept was introduced into wide scientific use by Yu. N. Karaulov, who believes that a linguistic personality is a person who has the ability to create and perceive texts that differ: “a) in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity; b) depth and accuracy of reflection of reality; c) a certain target orientation.
Yu. N. Karaulov developed a level model of a linguistic personality based on a literary text (Karaulov, 1987). Linguistic personality, in his opinion, has three structural levels. The first level is verbal-semantic (semantic-combat, invariant), reflecting the degree of proficiency in ordinary language. The second level is cognitive, at which the actualization and identification of relevant knowledge and ideas inherent in society (linguistic personality) and creating a collective and (or) individual cognitive space takes place. This level involves the reflection of the language model of the personality's world, its thesaurus, culture. And the third - the highest level - pragmatic. It includes the identification and characterization of the motives and goals that drive the development of a linguistic personality.
Consequently, the encoding and decoding of information occurs in the interaction of three levels of the "personal communicative space" - verbal-semantic, cognitive and pragmatic.
The concept of a three-level structure of a linguistic personality in a certain way correlates with three types of communication.
1 Maslow A. Psychology of being. - M., 1997. - S. 250. 118
tive needs - contact-establishing, informational and influencing, as well as with three sides of the communication process - communicative, interactive and perceptual.
The level model of a linguistic personality reflects a generalized personality type. There can be many specific linguistic personalities in a given culture, they differ in variations in the significance of each level in the composition of the personality. Thus, a linguistic personality is a multi-layered and multi-component paradigm of speech personalities. At the same time, a speech personality is a linguistic personality in the paradigm of real communication, in activity. It is at the level of speech personality that both the national and cultural specificity of the linguistic personality and the national and cultural specificity of communication itself are manifested.
1) value, worldview, component of the content of education, i.e. system of values, or life meanings. Language provides an initial and deep view of the world, forms the linguistic image of the world and the hierarchy of spiritual ideas that underlie the formation of a national character and are realized in the process of linguistic dialogue communication;
2) cultural component, i.e. the level of mastery of culture as an effective means of increasing interest in the language. Attracting the facts of the culture of the language being studied, related to the rules of speech and non-speech behavior, contributes to the formation of skills for adequate use and effective influence on a communication partner;
3) personal component, i.e. that individual, deep, that is in each person.
The parameters of linguistic personality are just beginning to be developed. It is characterized by a certain stock of words that have a particular rank of frequency of use, which fill abstract syntactic models. If the models are sufficiently typical for a representative of a given language community, then the lexicon and manner of speaking may indicate his belonging to a particular society, indicate the level of education, type of character, indicate gender and age, etc. The language repertoire of such a person, whose activities are associated with the performance of a dozen social roles, must be assimilated taking into account the speech etiquette adopted in society.
A linguistic personality exists in the space of culture reflected in the language, in the forms of social consciousness at different levels (scientific, everyday, etc.), in behavioral stereotypes and norms, in objects of material culture, etc. Defining role
in culture belongs to the values of the nation, which are the concepts of meanings.
Cultural values are a system in which universal and individual, dominant and additional meanings can be distinguished. They are reflected in the language, more precisely, in the meanings of words and syntactic units, in phraseological units, in the paremiological fund and precedent texts (according to Yu.N. Karaulov). For example, in all cultures such human vices as greed, cowardice, disrespect for elders, laziness, etc. are condemned, but in each culture these vices have different combinations of signs.
For each culture, you can develop parameters that will be its original coordinates. Such parameters will be considered as initial value attributes.
To date, there are various approaches to the study of a linguistic personality that determine the status of its existence in linguistics: polylectic (multi-human) and idiolect (private human) personalities (V.P. Neroznak), ethnosemantic personality (S.G. Vorkachev), elitist linguistic personality (O.B. Sirotinina, T.V. Kochetkova), semiological personality (A.G. Baranov), Russian linguistic personality (Yu.N. Karaulov), linguistic and speech personality (Yu.E. Prokhorov, L.P. .Klobukova), linguistic personality of Western and Eastern cultures (T.N. Snitko), dictionary linguistic personality (V.I. Karasik), emotional linguistic personality (V.I. Shakhovsky), etc.
There are other concepts of linguistic personality. So, V.V. Krasnykh singles out the following components in it: 1) a speaking person is a person, one of the activities of which is speech activity; 2) the actual linguistic personality - a person who manifests himself in speech activity, possessing a body of knowledge and ideas; 3) a speech personality is a person who realizes himself in communication, chooses and implements one or another strategy and tactics of communication, a repertoire of means; 4) communicative personality - a specific participant in a specific communicative act, actually acting in real communication.
In this manual, we will operate with only two components of the linguistic personality - the actual linguistic and communicative.
So, a linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it also has an individual aspect. The individual in a linguistic personality is formed through an internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings; but at the same time, one should not forget that the linguistic personality has an impact on the formation of linguistic traditions. Each linguistic personality is formed on the basis of the appropriation by a specific person of the entire linguistic wealth.
stvo created by predecessors. The language of a particular individual consists to a greater extent of the general language and to a lesser extent of individual linguistic features.
Personality in general, according to the figurative definition of N.F. Alefirenko, is born as a kind of "knot" tied in a network of mutual relations between members of a particular ethno-cultural community in the process of their joint activities. In other words, the main means of turning an individual into a linguistic personality is his socialization, which involves three aspects: a) the process of including a person in certain social relations, as a result of which the linguistic personality turns out to be a kind of realization of the cultural and historical knowledge of the whole society; b) active speech and thought activity according to the norms and standards set by one or another ethno-linguistic culture and c) the process of assimilation of the laws of the social psychology of the people. For the formation of a linguistic personality, a special role belongs to the second and third aspects, since the process of appropriation of a particular national culture and the formation of social psychology are possible only through language, which is for culture, according to S. Lem, the same as the central nervous system for human life. A linguo-cultural personality is a basic national-cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, fixed in the language (mainly in vocabulary and syntax), constituting a timeless and invariant part of the personality structure.
Man and woman in society, culture and language
Man appears in two guises - a man and a woman. The male/female opposition is fundamental to human culture. There is numerous evidence for this. One of them is rooted in ancient ideas about the world: the Word, the spirit is the father of all things, and matter is the mother. The result of their merging is the Universe and everything that is in it.
In the anthropomorphic model of the Universe, a woman was equated with the Abyss, which, according to the pagans, was nevertheless considered the primary source of all life in the Universe. A woman is the personification of fate, and this idea has been preserved in languages - the Old Russian "kob" - fate (cf. Polish kobieta - a woman).
On the other hand, a woman is a symbol of the lower world, sinfulness, evil, everything earthly, perishable.
In archaic societies, where the conditions for survival and work were extremely difficult, historians do not record any special gender (gender) differences. When women entrusted men to pasture
livestock, they have become breadwinners. The subsequent "sexual" division of labor allowed the man to establish himself in history as an absolute subject. It was male activity that conquered nature and woman. The woman was recognized as a man, although half, but the second, as if additional, his "other I". Consequently, gender inequality entered the culture along with social progress.
In classical culture and philosophy, a woman was also opposed to a man: a woman is the keeper of the gene pool, she has the most valuable quality in nature - the ability to reproduce life, to procreate, i.e. reproduces traditional values while providing community life preservation functions. Despite this, it is associated in society with irrationality (Aristotle), immorality (Schopenhauer), sensuality (Kant), a creature with a lot of flaws (Freud), etc.
So, in our culture, a woman is chaos, which is given order by a man. Pythagoras believed that there was a positive principle that created order, light and man, and a negative one that created chaos, twilight and woman. In the Gospel, Jesus did not humiliate a woman by a single word, and the apostle Paul in his epistles and sermons reduced a woman to a subordinate position, and these views became the basis in Christianity. Eve arose from Adam's rib as his friend and helper, and this is the purpose of her being. The morning prayer of the Old Testament man says: "Blessed be the Lord, who did not make me a woman." History and philosophy, language and religion, etc. were built on this postulate.
East Slavic languages, like German, French and a number of others, unlike English, where “sex” (biological sex) and “gender” (sex as a sociocultural category) are distinguished, do not differentiate these concepts. However, considering sex only as a biological phenomenon impoverishes and simplifies this categorical concept, because masculinity (masculinity) and femininity (femininity) are, on the one hand, phylogenetically determined properties of the psyche, and on the other hand, sociocultural formations that take shape in ontogenesis. . Modern sociologists and philosophers consider the concepts of "sex" and "gender" as opposite. Gender is a sociocultural category that does not involve the traditional consideration of gender roles.
Initially, masculinity and femininity were recorded in mythology as the main binary dichotomy, through which the whole world was interpreted - both the Slavic ideas about Earth-mother and Sky-father, and the ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang, and the ancient Greek myth about androgynes confirm this.
Scientific interest in these phenomena was noted at the end of the 18th century, when the rapid development of the natural sciences forced
look at masculinity and femininity in terms of the laws of nature. So, Ch. Darwin argued that male aggressiveness and intelligence have a physiological substrate, that is, they are dominant, or male, features. His modern followers consider masculinity - femininity as genetically predetermined forms of behavior - "biograms".
The "Women's Question" is the question of the participation of women in politics, it arose in 1791 during the French Revolution. The French writer Olympia de Gouges exclaimed: "If a woman has the right to ascend the scaffold, she must also have the right to ascend the podium." The followers of de Gouges, who advocated that femme (woman) is also a person, were called feminists. The founder of modern feminism was the French writer and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, who in her classic work The Second Sex showed that a man is the creator of history, and a woman is only an object of his power. The 19th century was for women the century of attempts to establish social and political equality. But if it was easier to achieve social equality, then political equality was achieved with difficulty. For the first time in the world - in Denmark in 1915, in Russia in 1917, in Germany in 1919, in France in 1944 - women received the right to be elected and to be elected. The first decrees of the Soviet government gave the Russian woman both social and political rights.
From the end of the 19th century the phenomenon of masculinity - femininity begins to be seen as a phenomenon of the social order, when the social differentiation of society is presented as the result of a natural division of functions in society on the basis of sex. If at the beginning of the XX century. femininity was represented by two opposing poles - the role of a respectable woman and the role of a prostitute, then at the beginning of the XXI century. roles have changed (the role of a housewife and the role of a woman seeking career advancement). Other female roles are a vamp, a guardian of sexual morality, a mother, a victim, a housewife, etc. If earlier the role of a housewife and the role of a mother was imposed on a woman, now the combination of family and production roles is imputed with the complete exclusion of her from the decision-making process, i.e. instead of emancipation, the post-Soviet woman received a double and unbearable burden.
In general sociology, social feminology, or simply feminology, stands out - the science of the position and functional roles of women in society. The term "feminist" is negatively assessed by modern society, in the popular mind it is something between a "lesbian" and a "nymphomaniac"; proof of this is the following distribution (environment) of the term: frenzied, enraged feminists, and all feminist
theories are called nothing more than the specific theory, the feminine theory, and so on.
The birth of boys in the family has always been more preferable. The reason for this is the patriarchy of family relations, where the head of the family and its breadwinner is a man. Here it is appropriate to quote the following parable. The peasant blows rye and says: “I will throw one part into the wind (= I will pay taxes), I will throw the other into the water (- I will give it to my daughter, who is sailing away to another family), I will eat the third myself, I will pay off the fourth debt (I will give it to my parents), and the fifth in the duty of the ladies (= I will give it to my son, who will feed him in his old age).
Culture imposes such social and gender roles and forms of behavior, such role expectations are formed that exacerbate the differentiation of the sexes. The polarization of the sexes began to be seen as a manifestation of the "natural" qualities of men and women. Consequently, the dichotomy of the sexes is modeled by society and culture, and Simone de Beauvoir is absolutely right, whose statement has become winged: "You are not born a woman, you become a woman." German researcher Karin Hausen also explains the formation of sex role stereotypes by the separation of family life and work. Indeed, there are no “prescribed by nature” social roles, and society forces women to be on the sidelines.
Gender is a large complex of social and psychological processes, as well as cultural attitudes generated by society and influencing the behavior of a national linguistic personality. Thus, in gender there is a complex interweaving of cultural, psychological and social aspects. Therefore, it is of interest not only to philosophers and sociologists, but also to representatives of a number of sciences, including linguists. So, there is gender psychology, gender linguistics, gender poetics are being formed.
In our work, the category of gender is considered as a phenomenon of culture and language, i.e. in the aspect of linguoculturology. Our task is to see the invisible in ordinary language and the language of poetry. Let us try to show how this category is refracted in the language. All traditional Western (and not only) culture is heterosexual and masculine-centric. And this affects primarily the language: among a number of peoples, the very concept of “man” is associated only with a man, German das Man, English a man, French - un homme - a man and a person.
Even the word woman itself has a negative origin: all words ending in -shchina in Russian have a negative connotation (contempt or neglect) - redneck, bureaucracy, groupism, devilry. The word woman came from the Slavic woman and carried a connotation of neglect. As civilization developed, this halo was lost by the word.
Male culture teaches to focus on the action, not on the state, on the result, not on its process. Even various maxims are structured from masculine positions: “I came, I saw, I conquered!”, “Sink or disappear”, etc. At the same time, from a feminine position, the statement is constructed through a question, “doubt”.
In the mid-1960s, there was a surge of interest in gender in linguistics, which resulted in three main areas of research:
1) the social nature of male and female languages;
2) features of speech behavior;
3) cognitive aspect of differences.
Of greatest interest to us is the second and third areas of research.
One of the first works concerning gender linguistics was the work of O. Jespersen "The Language". It has a chapter "The Woman" (a woman), but the chapter "The Man" is absent, because the female language is considered marked, and the male language corresponds to the literary norm. In English dictionaries, words about women are mostly negative and evaluative. So, in Roger's dictionary in the heading "untidy" (unkempt) all the words refer to a woman: slut, frump, bitch, etc. In the heading education - all the words about men, except for two that express a claim to education: pedantess, bluestocking.
In 1987, the German researcher Treml-Plötz published the book "The Language of Women", in which she argues that discrimination against women in language is expressed not only in speech behavior, where the man is always the leading partner in the dialogue, but also in the use of masculine words to denote women (author, passenger, doctor), the use of masculine pronouns in a generalized sense (anyone, everyone), etc.
Since the verbal behavior of tenders is built on the basis of historically established stereotypes fixed in the language, it can be said that gender stereotypes are a system of ideas about how a man and a woman should behave. It was found that men and women have different behavioral strategies and verbal communication strategies. Even F. Nietzsche noticed that the happiness of a man is called “I want!”, And the happiness of a woman is called “He wants!” As if under this motto, the speech strategies of men and women are built.
Following A.E. Suprun (1996), we understand speech behavior as the whole complex of relations included in a communicative act, i.e. verbal and non-verbal information, paralinguistic factors, as well as the place and time of the speech act, the environment in which this fact occurs, etc. Therefore, speech behavior is the speech actions of individuals in a typical
new situations of communication, reflecting the specifics of the linguistic consciousness of a given society.
Since a man and a woman belong to different social groups and perform different social roles, society expects certain models of speech behavior from them. Indeed, there is a gender dichotomy in speech behavior. The male type of communication is less flexible, but more dynamic and less interlocutor-oriented communication. The most common genre of communication for men is conversation-information, and for women it is a private conversation. Women are more likely to use feedback, supporting it with the word "yes", which does not yet mean consent. Just this “yes” knocks down men who often complain that a woman agreed all the time during the conversation and suddenly stated the opposite at the end.
The female type of communication is more focused on the interlocutor, on the dialogue, on the subordinate role in communication, where the man chooses and changes the topic of conversation.
On the one hand, society has developed such stereotypes of behavior, according to which a woman plays a subordinate role in front of a man, she must be a good housewife, capable of doing any job, she must be kind, patient, obedient, gentle, faithful, beautiful, always desired. The absence of a husband in this model is seen as a departure from the norm, and leaving her husband as a rebellion. The norm is a family with a man at the head and with a division of roles. On the other hand, a woman is always negatively evaluated by a male society, as evidenced by philosophical, historical, literary discourses, and political events.
To study gender speech behavior, we conducted an associative experiment, where the words femininity, masculinity, beauty, strength, weakness, tenderness, reliability, betrayal, fornication were chosen as stimulus words. 400 subjects were taken - 200 girls and 200 boys aged 16 to 20 years (students of X-XI classes of schools in Vitebsk and students of I and II courses of VSU). As a working hypothesis, the idea was put forward that the language, performing a cumulative function, fixes certain gender stereotypes in associations. The purpose of the experiment is to reveal the specifics of the images of the linguistic consciousness of men and women - native speakers of the Russian language.
As a result of the experiment, we found that in the Russian language consciousness of both sexes, femininity is associated primarily with beauty, tenderness, charm, grace, and grace.
Women, evaluating themselves, focus on internal, personal qualities (refinement, charm, intelligence, sophistication, gentleness, wisdom, balance, originality, politeness, tact, etc.), while men mostly evaluate
they rank women according to external data (beauty, hair, legs, love, bed, sex, eyes, model, figure, veil).
Women are more critical of men than they are. Masculinity for them is not only strength, courage, courage, reliability, fearlessness, nobility, but also cruelty, war, lies. Such sharp assessments of masculinity are not typical for the ideas of men, in whose answers there was not a single word with a negative connotation, but only such words as strength, dignity, endurance, determination, confidence, and the like. Visual images of consciousness are more diverse and original in women.
Beauty is also evaluated differently by men and women. If the assessments of women (attractiveness, woman, nature, youth, girl, femininity, etc.) affect a relatively wide range of objects evaluated from this point of view, then a man most often evaluates a specific woman (woman, girl, hair, face, body, form, personality).
The strength of men is assessed in more detail and carefully than women: they have 92 answers, and women have only 61, most of which are synonymous with strength: power, power, stamina, health, etc.
Different attitudes of men and women towards treason and fornication, if for a woman it is primarily betrayal, lies, meanness, deceit, resentment, revenge (all words, except for one positive one - love and two neutral ones - marriage and mystery, have a pronounced negative connotation), then men have much more positive and neutral words: love, motherland, fidelity, home, family, friend, etc.
Thus, the experiment revealed a significant difference in the images of the linguistic consciousness of men and women.
In Russian culture, many, even moral, concepts are gender-oriented. So, the concept of shame is more associated with the weaker sex: girlish shame; lose shame (more often they talk about a woman). Integrity is also mainly related to a woman, because female decency for a Russian person is obedience to her husband, modesty, fidelity.
Our observations allow us to state that not only the female language is considered to be marked, but also in the very pair of opposing words "man - woman" the word "woman" is marked. In similar pairs, with seeming equality, one member is always perceived as more significant, and the second as derivative and marked: light - darkness, day - night, man - woman. The unmarked member always leads the couple: the bride and groom, the grandfather and the woman. Of course, linguistic marking cannot be recognized as the only and decisive argument in the issue of reflecting gender relations in the language, but we cannot help but see this as a cultural tradition that is reflected in the language.
The fact that the gender factor is reflected in the language is also confirmed by the following observations: in families with boys, they more often speak a dialect, and with girls - in a literary language; women and men have different attitudes towards humor: for the former, laughter and jokes are aimed at integration in the group, for the latter, at individual confrontation (J. Lakoff).
We are also interested in comparisons, which are the most ancient form of intellectual activity that precedes counting. Based on comparison and other intellectual techniques, each nation develops its own stereotypes and symbols. So, among Russians, a woman is compared with a birch, a flower, a mountain ash; Belarusians - with viburnum; Lithuanians cannot compare a woman with a birch, because the gender of a noun affects the formation of a symbol, while among Lithuanians a birch is a masculine gender. Ch. Aitmatov compares a woman with a mare.
The language fixed the patriarchal attitude: stereotypes are firmly entrenched in it, according to which many vices are inherent in a woman, therefore, comparing a man with her always carries a negative connotation: talkative, curious, flirtatious, narcissistic, capricious, hysterical like a woman, female logic; a woman is only adorned by a comparison with a man: a masculine mind, a masculine grip, a masculine character. A woman is credited with the inability to make friends and keep secrets, stupidity, illogicality: a woman has a road from the stove to the threshold, women's minds ruin houses; jo baba panam, there devil kamkaram. In numerous proverbs about women, one can see a disdain and a patronizing tone: my business is on the side, and my husband is right; the husband's sin remains beyond the threshold, and the wife carries everything home; a woman flatters - dashing strives.
A woman, even in the role of a wife and mother, carries negative connotations: to show Kuz'kin's mother; drink wine, beat your wife, don't be afraid of anything! azhatusya, as if for a gloomy zakaschus; You marry once, but you cry all your life.
Everything good in a woman comes from a man, such is the stereotype of a Russian person, therefore a man's mind (about a smart woman), a man's grip (about a successful woman), a man's character (about a woman with a strong character), etc. Nekrasov's horse will stop galloping, \ Enter a burning hut - this is not just male behavior, the phrase is reinforced by the archetype - involvement in fire, the male element.
These are linguistic and folk stereotypes. What is the speech behavior of a woman?
Deborah Tannen, researcher of speech strategies, in her book This Isn't What I Mean! How Communication Styles Create or Destroy Good Relationships showed that men and women use language for different purposes: a woman treats conversation as an important part of interpersonal relationships; a man, on the contrary, uses conversation to show that he
controls the situation, the conversation helps him to maintain independence and enrich his status. The reasons for this, according to the author, lie in communication styles. She highlights two of their most important characteristics - involvement and independence. Men are independent, and women are involved in communication, secondary in it.
Our observations and observations of other researchers allow us to establish that men are more receptive to new things in the language, there are more neologisms and terms in their speech. A woman's speech is more neutral, static, her vocabulary often contains obsolete words and phrases. Women's speech is much more emotional, which is expressed in the more frequent use of interjections, metaphors, comparisons, epithets, figurative words. Her vocabulary contains more words that describe feelings, emotions, psychophysiological states. Women tend to use euphemisms. They try to avoid elements of familiarity, nicknames, nicknames, invective vocabulary.
In the course of studying the frequency of using certain parts of speech, it was found that in a woman's speech there are more complex adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions. Women often use concrete nouns in their speech, while men use abstract ones; men often use active verbs, women - passive. This is due to the more active life position of men. At the same time, it was found that with an increase in the level of education, differences in speech are erased.
Gender differences are also reflected in fiction, where gender is presented in two aspects: 1) women's theme; 2) women's literature. So, by the end of the XIX century. in intimate lyrics, the frequency of references from a female person sharply increases: female poetry moves away from social problems. An example here is the work of Marina Tsvetaeva and her predecessor Mirra (Maria) Lokhvitskaya (1869--1905), who at the beginning of the century was called the “Russian Sappho”, and later M. Tsvetaeva was awarded this title. Their main themes are the chanting of love, but not abstract, romantic, but fatal, passionate, carnal, sensual:
I crave sultry pleasures, Unearthly caresses, immortal words, Indescribable visions, Unrepeatable hours.
She sings about liberated love, about love-suffering:
And if you have a seal of election, But you are destined to drag the yoke of a slave, Carry your cross with the majesty of a goddess, Know how to suffer!
Poetry of this type is a kind of protest against traditional views on the range of topics of women's poetry (the theme of Christian and romantic love, family happiness, motherhood). And if poetry for M. Tsvetaeva "grows" out of life, then the life of M. Lokhvitskaya differs sharply from the life of her lyrical heroines: she is a sane housewife and mother of three children. V. Bryusov noted that "the poet is attracted to sin, but not as a proper goal, namely as a violation of the truth, and this creates the poetry of true demonism" (Bryusov, 1912).
In the poetic picture of the world, the image of a woman is presented in an extremely diverse way; woman is a flower
I remembered her, Snowdrop hobbies I. Severyanin
J. Lakoff found discrepancies in the color designations of men and women: men have much less of them. Our observations made it possible to supplement this idea with the following: a woman not only has a wider color spectrum, but more designations of exotic color names are used: “moire”, “azure”. Color designations in women poets are much more likely than in men to turn into symbols. Men's color designations are more specific, more grounded: the color of crushed strawberries (Herzen's "Notes of a Young Man"; bold and colorful eyes, the color of a bee; a mummy-colored neck; a partridge-colored skirt (Bunin); Sobakevich's tailcoat was completely bearish in color (Gogol). I think that all color designations such as ashy, honey, emerald, lilac, cherry, milky, pistachio, coffee with milk, ivory, etc. were invented by men. the colors of downcast eyes, the bonnet the color of certain victories, the kerchief the color of newly arrived persons are typical feminine designations.
Of course, male writers also have very diverse color terms, but for the most part they are still grounded: “Men's suits are for sale. There is only one style ... And what are the colors? Oh what a great selection of colors! Black, black-gray, gray-black, blackish-gray, grayish-black, slate, slate, emery, the color of pig iron, coke color, peat, earthen, garbage, cake color and the color that in the old days was called "robber's dream "" (Ilf and Petrov); “He was wearing a somewhat poppy coffee-o-le-colored jacket, and chocolate-o-le-colored trousers, and creme brulee-colored boots with wine-red socks” (V. Kataev. Holy Well).
And here is how M. Tsvetaeva uses color.
The bright yellow color was popularly called the azure color. In the poem "Alleys" azure symbolizes the heavenly, heavenly temptation:
Azure, blue, Steep mountain! Azure, blue, Second Earth! Zor-Lazorevna, Sin-Ladanovna, Lazor-lazor, My coolness! La-dawn!
M. Tsvetaeva, as it were, plays with azure, turning the word with its different facets, without fear, experiments with color, turning it into a symbol of a steep mountain, then into a symbol of the earth, then into a symbol of coolness. In imitation of folklore, complex names such as Zor-Lazorevna, Sin-Ladanovna arise.
In speech behavior, a woman is guided by "open social prestige", i.e. on generally accepted norms of social and speech behavior, while a man tends to the so-called hidden prestige - to a deviation from the established norms and rules of communication. Therefore, in general, a woman's speech is softer, conflict-free. Women are less categorical in expressing and defending opinions. This makes them more suitable for a range of functions in society. Awareness of this fact by society leads to the fact that a reassessment of the clearly underestimated social status of women begins. A woman finally becomes a full partner in all matters, in the life of society. Some modern researchers make the development of the state dependent on how the balance of male and female principles was maintained in it.
The attraction of the male and female principles to each other is the law of the life of the Cosmos. It is no coincidence that in the apocrypha of Clement of Alexandria, a disciple of the Apostle John, to the question of when the Kingdom of Heaven will come, Jesus answers: “When two will be one and the male will be female and there will be neither male nor female” (Merezhkovsky D. The Secret of Three). Therefore, the question of the relationship of the sexes should become the most important in culture, its reverse side is the decline in morals, from which the death of peoples and civilizations (Sodom and Gomorrah) begins.
The image of a person in myth, folklore, phraseology
In the center of the world stands a person as a person having a body, soul, speech, i.e. a person with his feelings and states, thoughts and words, deeds and emotions, a good, evil, sinful, holy, stupid, brilliant person, etc.
In the mythological consciousness, a person is the center of the universe, the ancients saw in him an anthropomorphic embodiment of the Universe: the vertical position he occupies is his aspiration to heaven, with which his “high” thoughts are connected, the horizontal in a person is everything earthly, perishable (“ higher" and "longer" in the Bible).
The appearance of a person, captured in myth and language
The appearance of a person consists of three components: 1) the head and its parts; 2) body and 3) legs. How are they represented in mythology and language?
If in the modern view the head is the center of information processing, then in ancient man everything connected with the head correlated with the sky and its main objects - the sun, moon, stars. The mythology of the head - "the sun" - formed the basis of such phraseological units as the head is spinning, the head is on fire, the head is spinning.
Another mythology of the head - "God, the main thing, important" - is reflected in phraseological units around the head (about the important), the golden head (about an intelligent person).
The bulk of Russian phraseological units with the “head” component formed later and almost lost their connection with the indicated mythologems. Now these phraseological units primarily denote the intellectual abilities of a person, his qualities, physical states, etc. For example, the head is on the shoulders, the head is in place, the head is cooking - about an intelligent person; without a king in his head, a green head, a chicken head, an oak head, a garden head - about a stupid, narrow-minded person.
Denoting the most important part of a person, the word “head” forms phraseological units that characterize a person from a variety of sides: like snow on his head (unexpectedly), at least a stake on his head is comforting (about a stubborn person), a rebellious head (about a recalcitrant person), the head swells (state of of a person), an inveterate head (about a desperate person), a hot head (about an ardent person), a mediocre head (about an unfortunate person), etc. Most of the phraseological units with the “head” component have a positive connotation, which is explained by the presence in the Russian mentality of the archetype “head = sun, deity”.
Parts of the human head are eyes, nose, mouth, tongue, ears, teeth, etc., these are organs that have their own appearance and are very wide, but clear, functions - look, smell, taste, speak, etc. .
The eyes are the most important part of the human head and face. The oldest mythology, which gave life to several metaphors that have survived to this day, is “eye = deity”. Among the quasi-synonyms "eyes",
"eyes", "zenki" only the stylistically neutral word "eyes" denotes the organ of vision of any living creature. Eyes are the eyes of a person, and beautiful, large, expressive. It is the eyes that characterize not only the physical, but also the spiritual abilities of a person to comprehend phenomena, i.e. inner sight, they are the organ of intuition: to see with mental eyes, to see with the inner eye, the eyes of the soul, the eyes of the heart, the spiritual eyes. It is like a person contemplating: “And you yourself show me to the eyes of my soul” (F. Tyutchev).
The language accurately notes the unusual ability of the eyes - their pupils are in motion, hence the compatibility of a large range of verbs of motion with the word "eyes": look around with your eyes, look around with your eyes, look away, slide your eyes, measure with your eyes, search with your eyes, follow with your eyes, fix your eyes and etc. The eyes are an organ-instrument, an organ of "seeing". Therefore, we goggle our eyes in surprise and surprise, our eyes open wide when we unconsciously strive to get maximum information through them, we squint our eyes during close observation or with a high concentration of thought, avert our eyes under someone's judgmental gaze, thereby protecting our brain from the negative impact of the interlocutor, etc.
The sun and moon in the mythologies of many peoples were considered the eyes of a powerful deity. Phraseologisms master's eye (reliable supervision of something), without an eye (without supervision) are associated with this mythologeme.
Another mythologeme is “eye = man”, which gave rise to many phraseological units: the eye is trained (about an experienced person), the eye rests (about a pleasant visual impression), the eye rejoices (about a joyful event that can be seen), the eyes deceive (about a doubter in the reliability of what he saw), his eyes lit up (about a strong desire in a person); metaphors such as the eyes say, the eyes run, the eyes are ashamed; sayings the eyes are envious, the hands are raking (about the insatiability of human nature), etc.
Since 80% of the information about the world comes through the eyes, they are considered the most important of the organs, a mysterious magical power is attributed to them. In Russia, a slanting eye was considered "bad". Belief in the evil eye was born when the world, according to the ideas of the ancients, was inhabited by spirits. But until now, when we feel unwell, we say: this is the evil eye, someone has jinxed it, an unkind eye has looked.
In phraseological units with the “eye” component, ancient stereotypes of behavior have been entrenched and preserved to this day - do not look away (it was necessary to communicate with the interlocutor), to look away, etc.
To deceive someone is to interfere with an adequate perception of the world, i.e., first of all, to prevent him from looking, hence the phraseological units cover up eyes, splurge (Russian); zamylvatsya vochi, slyapshch vochi, zhv1r sypts at vocha (white).
From time immemorial, charms-amulets were made from the evil eye, which were made of precious metals and stones and made them in the shape of an eye, hence phraseological units such as eye-diamond (about the ability to see important, basic), cherish like an eye (very cherish), take your eyes in your hands ( be careful), with the naked eye (the modern form of this phraseological unit with the naked eye), etc.
Different peoples had a special relationship with hair. In the old days, they were given great importance in Russia: women, especially pregnant women, were forbidden to cut their hair, because they had a security function. This is confirmed by the folk tradition that has survived to this day - not to cut the hair of a child under one year old. In folk poetry, a cut off scythe shames a girl, who therefore cannot marry without a scythe. It is only in recent years that explanations for this have begun to appear in the popular science literature.
The language retained quite a lot of phraseological units, the semantics of which were based on the following archetypal ideas about hair: 1) they are a receptacle of strength, experience - up to gray hair, to the roots of hair, 2) a receptacle of memory, will - hair stood on end (about a strong fright, in which the will is paralyzed).
On a subconscious level, these archetypes still guide our actions: the defendants are cut off, as if paralyzing their will; “works” here and another archetype: “haircut = life change”. In ancient times, among the Slavs, during the transition to adolescence, boys were tonsured, they are still tonsured as monks, although the monks actually have hair, and those drafted into the army are really sheared.
Earlier in Russia, cut hair was burned. Throwing hair into the fire is a kind of sacrifice to the brownie. There was another custom: hair cut or left on the comb could not be thrown away. It was believed that if they were used by birds for their nests or were close to working mechanisms, this would affect the well-being of a person. Until now, the natives of the Pacific Ocean, in order to harm the enemy, attach the obtained strands of his hair to water plants, being exposed to surf blows, they destroy the health of the enemy. To prevent the hair from falling into the hands of enemies, the locals cut it often and short.
Phraseologism hair from the head will not fall - tracing paper from the Church Slavonic language, means that no harm will be done to a person. The archetype “hair = human health” lives here. The archetype “hair = man” corresponds to the Belarusian phraseological unit volas u volas (about similar people).
The nose is also an important part of the face. The word "nose" has become a component of a fairly large number of metaphors, phraseological units, in the meaning of which the archetype "nose = man" is clearly visible (for example, in N. Gogol's story "Nose" the nose behaves like a human being).
century): stick your nose (about a curious person), hang your nose (about a sad person), lead by the nose (deceive), nose to nose (about people standing very close), etc.
The beard - among the Slavs was considered to perform protective functions, and pulling the beard was considered a terrible insult. Russians have a proverb: a beard is more valuable than a head. Until now, the beard is especially revered by Muslims, whose most serious oath is: I swear by the beard of the Prophet!
The quasi-synonyms lips and mouth have different meanings and spheres of use: the mouth is a specifically human organ, while the lips can be an organ of an animal, etc. The word "lips" was widely spread only in the 16th-17th centuries, therefore, in phraseological units and other relic forms, the word "mouth" is most productive: from mouth to mouth, from the first mouth, on everyone's lips, does not leave the mouth, the mouth of a baby the truth speaks, with your lips and honey to drink. The word "mouth" often appears in the meaning of "talking person": beautiful lips all lie.
Special mention should be made of the language, the name of which is a component of a number of phraseological units with different typical meanings: to be a speaking tool - the tongue does not turn (there is not enough determination to say), how the tongue turned (how it was able to say); designate the process of speaking - bite the tongue (cut off speech), untie the tongue (speak freely), dissolve the tongue (speak obscenities), etc.
The designations of the remaining parts of the human face and head do not seem to us productive when metaphors and phraseological units arise, although with their help a certain number of phraseological units are formed: the ear does not lead, up to the ears, hang the ears, the ears wither (they denote behavior or feelings-relationships); have a tooth (dislike), impose in the teeth (get bored); the lip is not a fool (to have good taste); do not blow into the mustache (express indifference), etc.
The most productive words denoting parts of the human body are arms, legs, back and navel, they form a large number of the most diverse phraseological units, many of which have a mythological basis.
In the group of phraseological units with the hand component, several archetypes are clearly visible. For example, a hand is a symbol of power, law, strength - to have a hand, a right hand, etc .; hand - a symbol of wealth, an instrument for acquiring material wealth, and often dishonestly - to warm one's hands, to put one's hand into something (Russian); zaskabshch hand, tsukuu hand, jump and hand, give on the paw (white). In order to take possession of a thing, to appropriate it, one must grasp the thing with one's hand and thus declare one's dominance. The Russian word “litigation” is connected with the fact that in court the disputants pulled the disputed thing to themselves, and the one who mastered it received it as an acquisition (to acquire strength is obsolete
phraseological unit with a positive assessment and modern acquisitiveness - a word containing a negative assessment).
In this group of phraseological units, the “pocket” component appears as a receptacle for hands, although the hand itself is not called here: stuff pockets, get into someone else’s pocket (Russian); class at pile k1shen (white).
Most phraseological units with the “hand” component are surrounded by a negative halo, have a negative connotation or assessment: to be at hand (handy), that is, to be subservient; go hand in hand (one of the meanings - "to have an unofficial distribution" - is neutral, and the second - "about a woman prostitute" - is negative); the hand of the ps rises (not enough determination), empty-handed (taking nothing with him), his hands itch (about the desire to fight), under a hot hand (not controlling himself), etc. It seems that a certain archetype forms the negative semantics of these phraseological units, which, however, we were unable to establish.
With the help of gestures, hands in Russia performed many important ritual actions: they blessed, repented, swore, which was fixed in a number of phraseological units: hand on heart (honestly), shake hands (approve the deal, agree). Already a simple joining of hands is an emblem of connection, consent. Hence the handshake is a gesture of greeting, friendship. The one who takes responsibility for another, vouches.
Phraseologisms and other relic expressions with the word finger (part of the hand) are quite widely used: pointing finger, finger of fate, not touching with a single finger, etc. And although the word “finger” is on the periphery of human communication, in the minds of native speakers behind it stable associations are fixed, which are supported by culturally significant texts: religious, poetic, philosophical.
The legs of the pagan Slavs were considered belonging to demons: the devil himself will break his leg (about a cluttered place), how the left leg wants (it is not known how, how horrible), get up on the left foot (have a bad mood), here the lexeme "left" is related to the devil ; the earth is burning under your feet (about a dangerous place), the soil is shaking under your feet (about an uncertain, threatening situation), shake off the dust from your feet (forget), etc. Almost all Russian and Belarusian phraseological units with the “leg” component have a negative connotation.
All devils and demons in the Russian imagination were lame; in Russian fairy tales they were without pins; the goblin in the form of a bear has a fake leg; bad legs are also in all mythological characters that are born of the earth.
Phraseologisms take your feet in your hands (quickly run away), wallow at your feet (humiliately ask for something), take your feet away (get away from danger), there will be no legs (threat not to come); saying in feet
there is no truth (an invitation to sit down) and other expressions also have a negative connotation, which is associated with the archetype "legs = belonging to the devil." Numerous expressions are associated with this archetype, in which the foot is not directly called, but words are used that are associative or functionally associated with it: track, step, path, road, etc. So, a person who has transgressed the law, as if having gone astray, is not only a criminal, but also an unlucky, dissolute, deluded one. Phraseologism to cross someone's path means "to harm someone, to block the path to achieving the goal", and the phraseological unit to cover the tracks (to hide something) gave rise to a prejudice: like a blizzard, which, covering the trail of a traveler, makes him stray in one place, sweeping or washing sex after departure deprives a person of the opportunity to return.
A number of phraseological units form the word stop: direct your feet, in the footsteps, etc.
Despite the small number of phraseological units with a spin component, they are important for the Russian mentality, because they are associated, firstly, with the concept of hard, overwork - bending your back, breaking your back (backbone, hump), and secondly, the back is reliable protection, hence FE behind a wide back, etc.
With such a part of the human body as the navel, few phraseological units are known, the most important of which is the navel of the earth. But in mythology, the navel is assigned a special role, probably because the child is connected with the mother through the umbilical cord, feeds through her, i.e. this is the most important organ for a small person. Another reason is also significant: the navel is the center of the abdomen, and the concept of the center in all mythologies and religions is the main concept.
The concept of clothing is associated with parts of the human body, many words denoting clothing were the main component in the formation of such phraseological units as being born in a shirt, a shirt (about a happy person), being left without a shirt (about an impoverished person). According to A. A. Potebnya, their semantics is based on a myth: a cap and a shirt are amulets among the Slavs. In addition, being born in a shirt means an unusual birth, and, according to the research of V. Propp, the motive of a miraculous birth is a sign of a hero. Phraseologisms to break a hat (humiliate), trishkin caftan (unsuitable clothes) by their semantics are also associated with a different function of clothing that interferes with the free movement of the body, which formed a negative meaning in most phraseological units, one of the components of which was the name of clothing.
So we see that the phraseologisms-selfotisms for the most part (except for the head) carry negative connotations, are used with disapproval, disdain, contempt. Probably because all parts of the human body in mythology were the property of demons, the devil, evil spirits.
