The study of linguistic personality. linguistic personality. Yu. N. Karaulova's theory of linguistic personality, its sources and development in modern linguistics

Short description

The aim of the work is to analyze the main directions developed in modern linguistics, to study language personality.
For a long time in culturology there has been a tendency towards the most in-depth study of a person: his nature, appearance, inner world, mentality, etc. One of the topical areas of research is the understanding of the human phenomenon through natural languages.

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………3



The study of a linguistic personality representing any social group………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The study of linguistic personality in the national aspect …….10
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….12
Bibliography…………………………………

Attached files: 1 file

Introduction………………………………………………………………………3

1. The concept of "linguistic personality"…………………………………………...5
2. Directions in the description of a linguistic personality……………….…………8

1. The study of individual linguistic personality………………9

1. The study of a linguistic personality representing any social group………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. The study of linguistic personality in the national aspect …….10

Conclusion………………………………………………………………….12

Bibliography………………………………………………………………….14

Introduction

In the 2nd half of the 20th century, linguists began to explore the role of the human factor in language, taking a fresh look at such problems as language and thinking, the national language of a certain ethnic group, the language and picture of the world, linguistic personality, etc. Being one of the active forms knowledge of reality, language gives us a real image of the world, which man has striven to comprehend for many centuries. Based on this, the problem of studying the linguistic personality, which is the core of the worldview, arose.

The latest research in the field of communicative linguistics has opened up prospects for studying the problem of linguistic personality. Today, linguists speak more and more often and more convincingly about language as a way of verbalizing human communication in the process of people's joint activities. The analysis of linguistic personality inevitably leads research to the study of the key concept - personality.

The aim of the work is to analyze the main directions developed in modern linguistics towards the study of a linguistic personality.

For a long time, cultural studies have maintained a tendency towards the most in-depth study of a person: his nature, appearance, inner world, mentality, etc. One of the topical areas of research is the understanding of the human phenomenon through natural languages. Language, in this case, is not just a means of communication, transmission and expression of thought, but a system in which a conceptual image of the world is formed.

Attempts to highlight the features of speech activity have led to the emergence of a new object of study in science - a linguistic personality. From the standpoint of the anthropocentric paradigm, a person cognizes the world through awareness of himself, his theoretical and objective activity in it, determining the hierarchy of values ​​that manifests itself in his speech, and the focus is on a native speaker - a linguistic personality.
To date, various approaches to the study of linguistic personality are known: polylectic (many-human) and idiolect (particularly linguistic) personalities (v, p, Neroznak), ethnosemantic personality (S.G. Vorkachev), semiological personality (A.G. Baranov), Russian linguistic personality (Yu.N. Karaulov), linguistic personality of Western and Eastern cultures (T.N. Snitko), etc.

1. The concept of "linguistic personality"

The concept of “linguistic personality”, that is, a person in his ability to perform speech acts, is placed at the center of modern anthropocentric linguistics. It was first introduced into science by VV Vinogradov. The scientist approached the concept of a linguistic personality by studying the language of fiction. The logic of the development of the concepts "image of the author" and "artistic image", which are central in the scientific work of V. V. Vinogradov, led the researcher to the question of the relationship in the work of the linguistic personality, the artistic image and the image of the author. The first descriptions of specific linguistic personalities also belong to the pen of V. V. Vinogradov.

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 was 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. The linguistic personality 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 - highest level- pragmatic. It includes the identification and characterization of the motives and goals that drive the development of a linguistic personality. Consequently, the coding 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 communicative needs - contact-setting, informational and influencing, as well as with three sides of the communication process - communicative, interactive and perceptual.

The level model reflects the generalized type of personality. There can be many specific linguistic personalities, 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.

The content of a linguistic personality includes the following components:
1) value, worldview, component of the content of education, that is, a 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, that is, the level of mastering 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) the personal component, that is, the individual, deep, that is in every person.

Thus, the concept of "linguistic personality" is formed by the projection into the field of linguistics of the corresponding interdisciplinary term, in the meaning of which philosophical, sociological and psychological views are refracted on a socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person that make up his qualitative certainty. First of all, a "linguistic personality" is understood as a person as a native speaker, taken from the side of his ability to speech activity, i.e. a complex of psychophysical properties of an individual that allows him to produce and perceive speech works - in essence, a speech personality. The "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, the “linguistic personality” can be understood as the 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".

1. Directions in the description of a linguistic personality

Language 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 the national and cultural specificity of communication itself is revealed.

a) value, worldview, component of the content of education, i.e., a 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;

b) the culturological component, that is, the level of mastering 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;

c) a personal component, i.e. that individual, deep, that is in every 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 particular 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 certain society, indicate the level of education, type of character, indicate gender and age, etc. The language repertoire of such a person whose activities are related with the performance of a dozen social roles, must be learned taking into account the speech etiquette adopted in society.

The main means of forming a linguistic personality is the socialization of the individual, which involves three aspects:

Individual aspect;

The process of including a person in certain social relations, as a result of which a linguistic personality turns out to be a kind of realization of the cultural and historical knowledge of the whole society;

Active speech and thought activity according to the norms and standards set by one or another ethno-linguistic culture.

1. The study of individual linguistic personality.

In the concept of linguistic personality, the connection of language with the individual consciousness of the individual, with the worldview is fixed. Any person manifests himself and his subjectivity not only through objective activity, but also through communication, which is unthinkable without language and speech. A person's speech inevitably reflects his inner world, serves as a source of knowledge about his personality. Moreover, "it is obvious that a person cannot be studied outside the language ...", since, even from a philistine point of view, it is difficult to understand what a person is until we hear how and what he says. But it is also impossible to “consider language in isolation from a person”, because without a person speaking the language, it remains nothing more than a system of signs. This idea is confirmed by V. Vorobyov, who believes that "a person can only be spoken of as a linguistic personality, as embodied in the language." In linguistics, a linguistic personality is understood as "the totality of a person's abilities and characteristics that determine the creation and perception of speech works by him, linguistic competence, characterized by the depth and accuracy of reflecting reality, the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, while the intellectual characteristics of a linguistic personality come to the fore." According to Yu.N. Karaulov, “linguistic personality is that cross-cutting idea” that “penetrates all aspects of language learning and at the same time destroys the boundaries between disciplines that study a person outside of his language.” A linguistic personality is a type of a full-fledged representation of a personality, containing both mental, social, ethical and other components, but refracted through its language, its discourse.

1. The study of a linguistic personality representing a social group

The concept of a linguistic personality is not confined to an individual language user, but goes to the level of a national linguistic type. Linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it 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 all the linguistic wealth created by his predecessors. The language of a particular person consists to a large extent of common language and to a lesser extent - from individual linguistic features.

1. The study of linguistic personality in the national aspect

The linguistic personality is the bearer of linguistic consciousness, which exists in the form of two mental formations - knowledge and ideas, with the help of which a holistic image of the world is formed, which is "... the basis for the reflection of the individual and his further development of the semantic diversity of the world." Each linguistic personality is unique, has its own cognitive space, own knowledge of the language and features of its use. Researcher D. B. Gudkov believes that there is no just a linguistic personality, it is always national, always belongs to a certain linguocultural society.

Thus, a linguistic personality is potentially any native speaker, and the way of representing (studying and describing) a linguistic personality involves recreating its structure on the basis of the texts produced and perceived by it.

The very term "linguistic personality" contains the idea of ​​obtaining - on the basis of the analysis of the "language" (or rather, texts) - inference knowledge about the "personality":

• a) as an individual and the author of these texts, with his own character, interests, social and psychological preferences and attitudes;
• b) as a typical representative of a given linguistic community and a narrower speech community included in it, an aggregate or average native speaker of a given language;
• c) as a representative of the human race, an integral property of which is the use of sign systems and, above all, natural language.

Accordingly, the complexity of the approach to the study of language through a linguistic personality is manifested in the fact that the language in this case appears both as a system, and as a text, and as an ability.

Linguistics went to the linguistic personality as a linguistic object of study in different ways: psycholinguistic - from the study of the psychology of language, speech and speech activity in normal and altered states of consciousness, incl. aphasia of various kinds (studies by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A.A. Potebnya, L.S. Vygotsky, N.I. Zhinkin, A.A. Leontiev, A.R. Luria, etc.); linguodidactic - from the analysis of the processes of language learning and linguistic ontogenesis (the works of F.I. Buslaev, A.M. Leshkovsky, K.D. Ushinsky, V.A. Sukhomlinsky), purely philological, or literary criticism - from the study of the languages ​​of fiction ( works by V. V. Vinogradov, Yu. N. Tynyanov, M. M. Bakhtin, D. S. Likhachev, etc.).

All these paths characterize one very important circumstance, the transition of linguistics to global problem“Language and Man”, when there is an appeal to the human factor in the language, to identifying how the language is used by the subject of speech, depending on its communicative potential, on the addressee, etc.

Studies related to linguistic personality are characterized by a wide variety experimental methods: associative experiments, analysis of text retelling, semantic differential method, analysis of records of one day of a person, records of children's speech, analysis of the activities of interpreters and translators, analysis of statistically reliable self-observations of speakers over their written speech, experiments to restore degrammaticalized texts. Of the traditionally established directions in the field of philology proper in the study of texts, the closest to the above understanding of linguistic personality are such as the "language of the writer" and the "speech portrait" of a character in a work of art or a real "man from the street". Synonymous terms in relation to the linguistic personality are: the subject (who comprehended the world and reflected it in his speech); individual; the author of the text; text carrier; informant (active and passive); speaking; listening; speech portrait; idiolect; image of the author.

The ever-increasing interest in the study of linguistic personality is manifested in the fact that in last years the number of works containing attempts to describe "features of the linguistic personality of various typological groups (social-communicative and professional-communicative) is increasing: the linguistic personality of a philologist, a Russian teacher, the linguistic personality of a TV presenter, the linguistic personality of a translator and commentator". Due to the fact that the formation of a set of readinesses is determined not by subjective characteristics, but primarily by social conditions and the corresponding roles of a linguistic personality, the term "professional linguistic personality" was introduced. One of the most important characteristics of a professional linguistic personality is a vocabulary that has a certain rank of frequency of use, because vocabulary and manner of speaking indicates a person's belonging to a particular profession. Moreover, the characteristics of a professional linguistic personality directly depend on the tasks performed by this personality. For example, for a teacher, the most important tasks related to the scope of his activity are "transferring information, requesting information, inciting to action, expressing the attitude of a communication partner to action. These tasks are solved in the activities of a teacher when performing various types of work: explaining, consolidating , summing up the results of the lesson, etc., where certain qualities of the personality appear in a certain form. " [27, 54]

In the scientific literature, linguistic personality is presented in various ways. Two are most often used: the method proposed by G.I. Bogin, and the method formulated by Yu.N. Karaulov. The first method involves the reconstruction of a linguistic personality in three-dimensional space: a) data on the level structure of the language; b) types of speech activity; c) degrees of language proficiency. This description is more abstract and allows us to talk about general model linguistic personality.

The essence of the second method, proposed by Yu.N. Karaulov, is to distinguish three levels of linguistic personality:

• - zero, called semantic (verbal-semantic), reflecting the degree of knowledge of ordinary language, including the lexicon and fund of grammatical knowledge of the individual;
• - the first, called linguo-cognitive, represented by the thesaurus of personality;
• - the second, called motivational or pragmatic, which includes the phenomenon and characteristics of motives and goals that drive the development of the individual, her behavior, and control the production of texts. This way of representing a linguistic personality is interesting in that it makes it possible to see what skills are important for speech production.

Experiences in the reconstruction of a linguistic personality ("or a monologue in fiction") are contained, for example, in the works of V.V. Vinogradov on the language of N.V. Gogol and F.M. ), in Yu.N. Personality A.A. Reformatsky"), etc. Dictionaries of the language of writers, as well as other dictionaries, for example, "Motivational Dialect Dictionary", which reveals the methods of linguistic reflection of a naive speaker - an average linguistic personality of a native speaker ( dialect) - in search of a motivator of the internal form of the word, for example: "Chernetelles (mushrooms), they are yellow, like a fox, that's what they call it."

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, encoding and decoding of information occurs when three levels of the "personal communicative space" interact - 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 the Earth-mother and Heaven-father, and the ancient Chinese concept of Yin and Yang, and ancient greek myth about androgyns is proof of 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 a question about the participation of women in politics, it arose in 1791 during 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 late XIX in. the phenomenon of masculinity - femininity begins to be considered 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’ll throw one part into the wind (= I’ll pay taxes), I’ll throw the other into the water (- I’ll give it to my daughter, who sails away to another family), I’ll eat the third myself, I’ll pay off the fourth debt (I’ll 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-Ploetz 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 a man is always the leading partner of the dialogue, but also in the use of words male to designate 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. early XIX in. in salon speech, names such as the color of snakeskin, a hat the color of downcast eyes, a bonnet the color of certain victories, a scarf the color of new arrivals are typically 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, experimenting 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 recognized 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 modern view the head is the information processing center, then ancient man everything connected with the head was related to 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 head mythologeme - "God, the main thing, important" - was reflected in phraseological units around the head (about the important), the golden head (about smart 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 a man), 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 very broad, but clear, functions - to 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 being. 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 have survived to this day - do not take your eyes off (this is how you had 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.

To the hair different peoples there was a special relationship. 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 locks of his hair to water plants, being hit by the surf, 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!

Quasi-synonyms lips and mouth have different meanings and areas of use: mouth - specifically human organ, while the lips may 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. Russian word“litigation” is due to the fact that in court the disputants pulled the disputed thing to themselves, and the one who mastered it received it for himself (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 (lack of determination), with empty handed(taking nothing with you), hands itching (about the desire to fight), under a hot hand (not controlling yourself), etc. It seems that the negative semantics of these phraseological units is formed by a certain archetype, which, however, we were not able 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.

Chapter 1

§one. Substantiation of the need to create a linguosocionic methodology for studying the Russian language.

§2. The subject and object of study of linguosocionic methodology (linguistic personality and the way of using linguistic signs).

§3. The purpose of creating a linguosocionic methodology is to study the deterministic behavior of signs in real communication processes.

§4. Hermeneutic program as a way of mastering linguosocionic methodology.

Chapter 2

§one. Linguo-socionic passportization of Russian language texts for teaching a linguistic personality the Russian language.

§2. Formation of linguocognitive socionic competence of the Russian language personality.

§3. A specific modeled semantic base for the study of the socionic personality of the Russian language (language situation).

§4. Linguosocionic algorithm for decoding socionic personality in Russian.

Dissertation Introduction 2002, abstract on philology, Komissarova, Lyudmila Mikhailovna

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by its inclusion in the scientific paradigm of anthropological linguistics, which today is "another hyphenated science within the framework of linguistics. Its niche is at the intersection of linguistics with psychology and sociology" [Murzin L.N. 1995, 148:11]. The central point of anthropocentric linguistics is the concept of a linguistic personality [Baranov A.G., 1997:27; Bogin G.I., 1980:39, Karaulov Yu.N., 1987:93, 252, 254, 255, 256], manifested, developing self-regulating in acts of communication. Linguistic personality is "a kind of a full-fledged representation of a personality, containing both mental, social, ethical and other components, but refracted through its language, its discourse" [Karaulov Yu.N., 1989, 252:6].

From the interdisciplinarity of studies of linguistic personality in modern Russian studies, it follows that issues related to its study should be given the status of a methodological problem: "Concepts of this kind cannot be given through definitions, but can only be "built" as an examination of relations between heterogeneous" worlds "." individual, social and cultural" [Snitko T.N., 1995:201].

Problems of a linguistic personality are "problems of the space in which a linguistic personality realizes itself as such" [Snitko T.N., 1995:201]. At the same time, space is understood as "a certain form of organization, for example, a certain form of organization of the activity of cognition or understanding, which sets the specifics of the behavior of a linguistic personality focused on certain cultural paradigms" (ibid., p. 36). This implies the "Russian" nature of the linguosocionic methodology, which offers a linguistic description of the Russian linguistic personality through the identification of a characteristic and optional content assigned to a linguistic sign - a word, a sentence and a text, which is recognized as an idioethnic component in linguistic cognitive models, as opposed to a necessary component, which is a linguistic universal [Gizdatov G.G., Shelyakhovskaya JI.A., 1995: 62]. Linguistic personality in modern linguistics is studied in several directions.

Personality as a subject of cognitive processes is studied in the psycholinguistic direction. The language ability of an individual (the innate or social nature of the language ability, its structure) [Vygotsky L.S., 1996:55, Leontiev A.N., 1969:120, Shakhnarovich A.M., Yurieva N.M., 1990:241 ], the processes of generating and perceiving speech - speech activity (the role of mental processes in speech generation) [Zhinkin N.I., 1964:84, Winter I.A., 1978:88, Kubryakova E.S., 1986:114, Zalevskaya A .A., 1988:86, Krasnykh V.V., 1996:110, 1999:111] are the main research problems in this area. Language and speech are considered as a tool for cognition and mastery of reality. The main methods of this direction are the methods of experiment (associative method, the method of "semantic differential", etc.) and modeling of cognitive processes in the form of frame structures, propositions, concepts [Deik T.A., 1989:72, Minsky M., 1981:143, Shabes V.Ya., 1985:236]. The text acts as a unit of speech activity, which makes it possible to recreate and model the process of speech production, to study the patterns of its course and its relationship with mental processes [Kamenskaya O.L., 1990:91, Krasnykh V.V., 1996, 1999].

Linguistic personality as a carrier of linguistic features, features - phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic, correlating with its social characteristics, belonging to one or another language or speech community, social status, the role in the situation of communication is considered in the sociolinguistic direction [Avrorin V.A., 1975:3, Bell R., 1980:30, Erofeeva T.I. 1995:82, Nikolsky L.B., 1976:156, Schweitzer A.D., 1977:243]. The main sociolinguistic methods are field observation methods, correlation analysis, accompanied by a commentary with estimates of the nature of such correlations. The text in this direction acts as a material that allows reconstructing socially determined linguistic and speech personality traits that are common to a linguistic or speech group [Kochetkova T.V., 1999:109].

A linguistic personality from the point of view of national and linguistic specificity is described in a cultural direction, in linguistic ethnography [Bgazhnokov B.Kh., 1991:29, Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G., 1983:50, Klyukanov N.E., 1999:101]. In this case, ethno-specific linguistic personality traits are studied, which are expressed in texts as products and signs of a certain culture. The national linguistic personality is recreated by means of a comparative analysis of texts of both one culture and different cultures, through a description of the fund of linguistic and speech values ​​common to the ethnos and culture. Significant in this direction is the method of commenting, when a word or phrase denoting the reality of any ethnic culture is given additional information about the degree and scope of use, about various connotations specific to this culture (experience in compiling linguocultural dictionaries).

The linguistic personality in the pragmalinguistic direction is studied from the point of view of its interactional beginning, that is, the subject of the study is the ability of the individual to communicate as a type of activity [Baranov A.G., 1997:27, Zernetsky P.V., 1988:87, Klyukanov I .E., 1988:100, Susov I.P., 1988:215, Sukhikh S.A., 1988:216]. Communicative activity here is part of the socio-practical interaction of individuals.

Pragmalinguistics offers a functional model of a linguistic personality, highlighting its active principle, which manifests itself in the processes of selecting linguistic signs according to the goals and objectives of communication. The selection process is also determined by the installation investigated by Uznadze D.N. The difference in attitudes served as the basis for the development of a communicative typology of a linguistic personality [Sukhikh S.A. 1988:216, 1993:217]. The main method of this direction is the modeling method.

A linguistic personality in terms of its ability to learn the language (languages), develop and improve in terms of language and speech is considered in the linguodidactic direction (Bogin G.I., 1982:38, Karaulov Yu.N., 1987:93, Murzin L.N. ., Smepok I.N., 1994: 149]. Linguistic personality is "a person considered from the point of view of his readiness to perform speech actions. The one for whom language is speech" [Bogin G.I., 1982, 38:3] In linguodidactics on present stage there are two directions: personality training in the process of analytical activity, in the process of mastering various methods and techniques of analysis, was named by Yu.N. Karaulov "methodological approach to the reconstruction of linguistic personality". In the second, communicative direction, the goal of training is the formation of skills "to use the language in the process of communication" [Karaulov Yu.N., 1987, 93:32]. This approach has become dominant in teaching foreign languages ​​and teaching Russian as a foreign language.

In anthropocentric linguodidactics, where the student acts as the central figure of the didactic process, there are two models of linguistic personality. The author of the first one, G.I. Bogin, considers it from the point of view of a set - wide in the case of a developed linguistic personality, narrow - on the contrary - readiness to perform various speech actions, for example, stylistic readiness, readiness for good versification, readiness to express one's experiences in an accessible for other forms, logical readiness and others [Bogin G.I., 1982, 38:26-40]. The author of the model does not provide an exhaustive list of readinesses, as well as a description of their systemic relationships. In addition to readiness, the main speech skills and abilities are listed, for example, “the ability to speak with everyone in his language”, which is called the “role principle of speech development”, “aesthetic development of productive speech, the ability to criticize art, the ability to make an aesthetic analysis of the text” (ibid. , p.25). All types of readiness, skills and abilities form the competence of a linguistic personality, determining the degree of its language proficiency. This model is named Yu.N.

Karaulov's "readiness model" of a linguistic personality, in which "the starting point is the final, ideal result of learning", and the approach is called the target one.

The second model, being a systematized, supplemented version of the readiness model, and named by the author Yu.N. Karaulov - linguodidactic, "connects data about the device of the language, about the language structure with the types of speech activity<.>, represents a linguistic personality in its development, formation, in its movement from one level of language proficiency to another, higher one ". In a linguistic personality as a whole, there are sixty components, each of which is correlated with the concept of speech readiness.

The linguosocionic methodology developed in this work is associated with a linguodidactic approach to the study of linguistic personality. This connection is based on considering and giving language the status of a means of solving human problems in the field of communication, especially in those situations when it is necessary to carry out communication aimed at the implementation of "semantic contact, achieved only in the event of a coincidence of" semantic focuses "in the course of the exchange of communicative-cognitive activity. "[Dridze T.M., 1980, 80:33]. Considering a language in this capacity involves the introduction of linguosocionic methodology into everyday language practice, and the simplest and most effective way this is learning.

Linguosocionic methodology develops the idea of ​​G.I. Bogin’s readiness model of a linguistic personality, since it is this model that corresponds to the emerging ideas about the learning process as taking into account various didactic factors as much as possible [Dobrovolskaya V.V., 1997: 76, Rozhkova G.I. 1997:189]: language material and the nature of the informative, meaningful basis (base) of the course, the student's cognitive style of thinking, his individual abilities, his psychological type. The description of a specific flexible learning model "is based on a description of the dynamics of the trainees' competencies formed in the course of implementing the course goals" [Dobrovolskaya V.V., 1997, 76:186]. In addition, the willingness model of a linguistic personality represents learning as a process of continuous mastery of the native language, as a process of continuous improvement in the quality of linguistic and communicative competence.

The preparedness model of a linguistic personality, developed by linguosocionic methodology, was created and functions primarily within the framework of the national language, which is the most important component of national culture. In a broad sense, the proposed methodology pursues the goal of "the formation and development of the national identity of the individual" [Abdulfanova A.A., 1995:2]; updates the content of the category of national linguistic personality, which is of great importance in linguodidactics. This happens through the introduction of the presented methodology into the arsenal of Russian studies of its own way of applying the semantic content and linguistic richness of the texts of Russian culture to the modern language situation. The means of this is the hermeneutic form of language education and training, which forms the readiness of a linguistic personality for a specific, through the familiarization of students with the "hermeneutic research procedure when working on a text" [Bogin G.I., 1982, 38:29], reception of texts in their native language.

The linguosocionic methodology of studying a linguistic personality represents understanding as a process and result of understanding by the reader-student of the way of understanding that was used by the author in mastering the situation of reality. In other words, the reader cognizes the world through the prism of the author's consciousness, also exploring the method of such cognition. At the same time, the method of cognition is the socionic method.

Socionics is a science that studies the types of information exchange between a person and the environment and is introduced into work on the basis of the principle of complementarity. Socionics is involved as a means that "provides a person with culture to understand the elements of the language or the linguistic structure of texts" [Nikitina S.E., 1989:155] and helps the reader understand the meaning of the text of the message, determining the socionic type of the author's linguistic personality. The socionic linguistic personality is reconstructed from the text of the message on the basis of four features: rationality-irrationality, logic-emotionality (ethics), sensory intuitiveness (type of perception) and extraversion-introversion.

In linguosocionic methodology, the study of the socionic properties of a linguistic personality is carried out on a methodological and linguistic basis, which consists of: linguodidakgics (communicative and analytical psychological) [Buslaev F.I., 1992:44, Vasilyeva A.N., 1990:46, Lvov M.R. ., 2000:128, Loseva L.M., 1980:126, 117, 139, Nikitina E.I.D996:153, Fedorenko L.P., 1984:227, 220, 54, 121, 206], linguosemiosocial-psychological theory T.M. Dridze, decoding style I.V. Arnold, pragmalinguistic studies [Arutyunova N.D., Paducheva E.V., 1985:15, Zernetsky P.V., 1988:87, Paducheva E.V., 1996:166, Susov I.P., 1988:215, 178, 179, 180, 253], hermeneutics [Bogin G.I., 1982:38, 1989:37, 1994:36, Arnold I.V., 1998:10 Brandes ML, 1988:41, Gadamer G.G., 1988:56, 59, 60], socionics [Augustinavichyute A., 1998:19, 20, Panchenko T., Panchenko A., 1993:169].

Communicative linguodidactics and analytical psychological are connected in this study by the category of language experience common to them, already by the category of hermeneutic experience, the experience of understanding that arises, develops in communicative-cognitive activity and involves intuitive, individual, psychological knowledge of the text, in which "the interfering influence of language is removed influence, both intralinguistic and interlingual, on the system of psychological images of trainees" [Murzin L.N., Smepok I.N., 149:111-112].

From the categorical apparatus of linguosemiosociopsychological theory, the methodological base of the study includes the following concepts and categories: communication as a communicative-cognitive process, text activity, which in our work appears in the structure of communicative-cognitive activity as an independent one (with its own motive, subject and product); the recipient (interpreter), who is the subject of textual activity; semiotic skills and abilities; interpretation of the sign as a figure of consciousness, a quasi-object that sets the program of activity for the interpreter.

The significance of the style of decoding for the undertaken research is determined by the possibility of combining the hermeneutic and information approaches to the text, where the text is considered as a message sent through information channels from the source to the recipient of information. The source of information is reality, the recipient is social reality, the information is encrypted in linguistic signs.

Pragmalinguistic studies constitute the linguistic base of the study. The use of linguistic signs in communicative, speech and text activities, the connection of discourse structures with structures of consciousness and structures of consciousness and structures of discourse with activity structures are the fundamental ideas of the proposed work. The pragmatic meaning of the linguistic sign [Arutyunova N.D., 1988:14, Nikitin M.I., 1988:152, Novikov L.A., 1982:160], propositional attitudes [Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. , 1989:42, 1997:43, Paducheva E.V., 1996:166, Shatunovsky I.B., 1989:240, 125] as a linguistic and textual reflection of the intentions of the individual, they play the role of operational units in the study.

The hermeneutic aspect of the research is represented by the following basic concepts: understanding as a multidimensional concept (process, result, ability), understanding process, reflection as a methodology of understanding, hermeneutic research procedure, units of work with text when deploying reader's reflection; hermeneutic experience.

From the methods of linguistic experiment, the method correlation analysis, commenting, modeling and other main method of dissertation research is the modeling method. The object of modeling is "procedures that lead a scientist (in our case, a student - L.K.) to the discovery of a particular linguistic phenomenon. These models imitate research activities"[Apresyan Yu.D., 1966, 6:78]. The model developed in the study refers to the semantic models of speech activity, which "simulate the ability of native speakers to understand and build meaningful sentences" [Apresyan Yu.D., 1966, 6:106 ], the ability to understand is developed in hermeneutic activity. Thus, the object of modeling is the hermeneutic research procedure leading the interpreter (Russian linguistic personality) to the discovery of the socionic code of the text of the message, and through it to the socionic properties of the linguistic personality of the author of the message. The work uses the information method of quantitative and qualitative analysis [Gritsenko V.I., Kanygin Yu.M., Mikhalevich V.S., 1986:68], applied to linguistic signs, as well as induction and deduction as universal forms scientific methodology.

Poetic texts (by M. Tsvetaeva, O. Mandelstam, A. Akhmatova, N. Gumilyov and B. Pasternak) serve as the material for the study. The choice of research material is justified, firstly, by their belonging to an artistic genre: "the hermeneutic research procedure is applied not only to literary texts, but to any symbolic constructions. However, the literary text remains a "training ground" for creating the appropriate skills" [Bogin G.I., 1980:39]. Secondly: "the language of lyrics in many structural respects is closer to colloquial. In lyrics, there is only a shift in interpretation: secondary, background components of the semantics of egocentric elements - such as the presence of the speaker, observability - become the main ones" [Paducheva E.V., 1996, 166:209]. Mandatory presence

12 of the lyrical hero, the most direct (in comparison with other genres of fiction) self-expression and expression in the text of the individual experience of experiencing, understanding, evaluating various situations of reality require the same mandatory contextual information of a socionic nature, while in prose genres with a system of expressing the author's "I" (author, hero-narrator, narrator, "favorite hero") to decode such information, it is necessary to take into account this system and, possibly, a different hermeneutic procedure. Thirdly, the high cultural, artistic and linguistic value of texts means that they also have a didactic potential - the ability to act as exemplary texts of communicative and linguistic competence. The personalities were chosen on the basis of their belonging to the same cultural and historical era, and the selection of texts of each of the poets was carried out taking into account the chronology of creativity - texts were taken from collections * reflecting the main stages of the poets' creativity in order to identify the most typical ways for the author to encode the information of the message text.

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the substantiation and development of a system of techniques that are actualized through the hermeneutic activity of a linguistic personality in the Russian language - linguosocionic methodology. It is established for the first time that the type of communicative interaction of the interpreter with the text depends: firstly, on the socionic type of consciousness; secondly, the discourse of personality; thirdly, the intensional contexts of discourse and the types of connections between them.

The practical significance of the study is determined by the possibility of using the methodology, materials and conclusions of the study for applied purposes, for example, in the educational process when reading courses on pragmatics, culture of speech, stylistics, in the linguistic analysis of a literary text. In addition, the dissertation material can become the basis for a special course on the psychology of speech communication.

The scientific novelty of the presented research is: the linguosocionic methodology of mastering the Russian language by a Russian linguistic personality, developed within the framework of the hermeneutic approach, which in domestic linguodidactics is poorly equipped with interpretation methods [Arnold I.V., 1998: 10]; the use of socionics data, which has developed information models of human perception of the world, the main task of which is filtering and limiting signals coming from outside; revealed correspondences of types and classes of propositional attitudes (as pragmatic units in the system of the Russian language) to socionic types of linguistic personality and patterns of their combination in a literary text.

The object of research is the linguistic personality as an information system, the exchange with the environment of which is carried out in the process of semiotic activity (production and decoding of messages).

The subject of the study is the pragmatic level of a linguistic personality and those features of information exchange that are determined by the psychological type of personality, the type of information model of consciousness.

The aim of the study is to study the deterministic behavior of signs in real communication processes.

The purpose of the study is achieved in the process of solving the following tasks:

1) identifying types of linguistic signs that can reflect the socionic features of the consciousness of the author of the text of the message;

2) definitions of types of determination chains, correlating with the socionic properties of the personality, its type;

3) development of a hermeneutic socionic procedure leading the interpreter to the discovery of the socionic properties of a linguistic personality;

4) incorporation of linguosocionic methodology into the existing theory and practice of teaching the Russian language

Provisions for defense:

1. The textual activity of a linguistic personality is a means of harmonizing a person as a natural original system endowed with an archetypal structure of consciousness with his social role.

2. The text is a linguistic message about the socionic properties of its author and informs the decoder about the socionic norm in its psychological, linguistic and informational aspects.

3. Hermeneutic textual activity allows a linguistic personality to model the linguistic situation as a paradigm that unites texts with a similar socionic code, which represents the linguistic situation as an anthropocentric model.

4. The language system provides the linguistic personality with the possibility of an individual, socionic interpretation of the situation of reality. This is done through the use of a special type of linguistic sign - a propositional setting. The "feature" of the propositional attitude lies in the fact that its real informativeness (the value fixed in the dictionary) controls the effective informativeness, which exceeds the real one, while the semantic difference is information about the socionic properties of the linguistic personality.

5. In the process of hermeneutic textual activity, the integration of linguistic knowledge, knowledge of the systemic properties of the language into the real communicative experience of the student takes place, which entails the formation of linguocognitive hermeneutic socionic competence as a link between the communicative, speech and language types of competencies, as well as effective mastery of the Russian language.

The work was tested at the following scientific seminars and conferences: All-Russian scientific seminar "Man - communication - text" (Barnaul, 1995, 1997), Interuniversity scientific-practical conference "Interpretation of a literary text" (Biysk, 1997), International scientific conference "Culture and text" (Barnaul, 1997), International scientific conference "Linguistic situation in Russia at the end

XX-th century" (Kemerovo, 1998), scientific-practical conference "Linguistics and school" (Barnaul, 1999), regional school-seminar "Methods of teaching a foreign language in a situation of cultural polyphony" (Barnaul, 2001).

The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and five appendices.

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Linguosocionic methodology for the study of linguistic personality in the Russian language"

Conclusion

The result of the linguosocionic methodology of studying the Russian language by a Russian linguistic personality was the identification of such a type of behavior of linguistic signs in real communication processes as deterministic behavior. The determinative behavior of linguistic signs is determined by the type of informational metabolism of the individual, or his psychological type.

The study also resulted in the creation of a linguosocionic approach to the problems of teaching Russian as a native language, which allows differentiating the characteristics of a linguistic personality. The implementation of differentiation is based on the methodological base created in the study - a set of methodological means of linguosocionic methodology.

Representation of a linguistic personality in linguosocionic methodology as information system made it possible to trace the chain of determination, where the initial link is the socionic property of a linguistic personality, which manifests itself in the selection and organization of linguistic signs, on the one hand, on the other hand, the behavior of linguistic signs is determined by the laws of the language system.

The deterministic linguistic behavior of signs is manifested in the models of semantic control of some linguistic signs by others.

A special control (determination) function is performed by the propositional setting. It controls the way of designating a linguistic sign, determining the actualization of the pragmatic (evaluative) meaning, which is classified depending on the type of propositional setting, which, in turn, characterizes the way the author masters the situation of reality.

There are four such methods: the logical method corresponds to the logical-objective aspect of the situation of reality; the emotional aspect is compared with the aspect of the state of objects and objects of the situation of reality; the sensory way of mastering involves orientation to the perception of the spatial aspect, and the intuitive way - of the temporal.

The control function is taken over by such a component of the semantic meaning of a linguistic sign as a pragmatic meaning. The pragmatic meaning is a kind of remnant of the use of a linguistic sign, its effective informativeness, which overlaps the real informativeness recorded in the explanatory dictionary; in linguosocionic methodology, it signals a special type of connotations - socionic.

The composition of linguistic signs in linguosocionic methodology includes a word, a sentence, a text and a propositional setting, which within the framework of the text form an intensional context - an interpersonal context that reflects the orientation of consciousness to a certain aspect of the situation of reality. There are four such aspects and intensional contexts corresponding to them: logical (objective), emotional-ethical (energetic), spatial and temporal.

The text as a linguistic sign demonstrates a secondary norm of the functioning of language in intensional contexts, a norm of an objective nature. The secondary and objective nature is due to the logical operation of implication, which makes it possible to reduce the uncertainty (multivariance) of the course of the hermeneutic process, that is, to increase its determinative properties.

Using the scaling technique, the researcher gets the opportunity to model the language situation in a different way: in the form of a set of texts distributed according to paradigms corresponding to the social function they are intended to perform. In addition, the scaling approach made it possible to describe the linguosocionic methods of encoding a message. There are sixteen such codes, in accordance with the socionic typology of personality.

The introduction of linguosocionic methodology into everyday linguistic consciousness is possible as a hermeneutic program of an individualized nature, by fitting it into the general context of teaching Russian as a native language.

The need to organize practical activities with linguistic signs, which allows one to master the linguosocionic methodology for studying a linguistic personality, led to the creation of methodological tools: sample texts and standard texts, as well as a dictionary of propositional attitudes and a linguosocionic decoding algorithm. In the course of the hermeneutic process, the purpose of which is to search for a protoponition as a zone of formation of meanings (information) corresponding to the leading function of the personality, the interpreter uses these means: the standard text and the sample text, which orient him in what is correct, demonstrate the socionic norm; using a dictionary of propositional attitudes, the interpreter gets background information information needed to answer hermeneutic questions.

By working out the linguo-socionic decoding algorithm, the interpreter himself forms a type of linguo-cognitive competence - linguo-cognitive hermeneutic socionic competence.

The result of the study was the determination of the socionic properties of the linguistic personalities of the authors whose works served as the material of the work: the leading way of mastering reality in M. Tsvetaeva is the irrational extraverted sensory way, in O. Mandelstam - the irrational introverted intuitive way, in A. Akhmatova - the rational introverted ethical way, in N. .Gumilyov - rational introverted logical, B. Pasternak - irrational extraverted intuitive way of mastering reality.

Linguosocionic methodology has introduced new parameters in the certification of didactic material.

List of scientific literature Komissarova, Lyudmila Mikhailovna, dissertation on the topic "Russian language"

1. Abramyan L.A. On the philosophical meaning of the problem of meaning / Methodological problems of language analysis. Yerevan: Yerevan University Publishing House, 1976. - P. 97-98.

2. Abdulfanova A.A. Language as a means of forming a person's national self-consciousness / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstract. report and message int. scientific conf. Yekaterinburg: publishing house of the Ural State University, 1995. - S.37-38.

3. Avrorin V.A. Problems of studying the functional side of the language. -L.: Nauka, 1975.-256 p.

4. Actual problems pragma al ingvistiki: Abstracts of scientific reports. conf. Voronezh: Publishing House of the Voronezh University, 1996. - 120 p.

5. Antomonov Yu.G. Informatics and control in biological systems / Methodological problems of cybernetics and informatics: materials methodologist, philosopher. seminar. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1986. S.152-154.

6. Apresyan Yu.D. Ideas and methods of modern structural linguistics. M.: Education, 1966. - 302 p.

7. Apresyan Yu.D. Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language. M.: Nauka, 1974. -364 p.

8. Apresyan Yu.D. Formal Model of Language and Representation of Lexicographic Knowledge // Problems of Linguistics. 1990. - No. 6. - P. 123-140.

9. Arnold I.V. Decoding style. Lecture course. - Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1974. 76 p.

10. Yu.Arnold I.V. Prospects for the development of stylistics / Questions of philology and methods of teaching foreign languages: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Under the editorship of L.N. Shelontseva. Omsk: Publishing House of the Omsk GPU, 1998.-S.Z-10.

11. N. Arnold I.V. Stylistics of modern English. M.: Enlightenment, 1990. - 300 p.

12. Arutyunova N.D. Linguistic problems of reference / New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 13: Linguistic problems of reference. -M.: Rainbow, 1982. S.15-35.

13. Arutyunova N.D. "Believe" and "see" (on the problem of mixed propositional attitudes) f Logical analysis of language: problems of intensional contexts: collection of scientific articles. M.: Nauka, 1989. - S.8-28.

14. Arutyunova N.D. Types of language values. Grade. Event. Fact. -M.: Nauka, 1988.-341 p.

15. Arutyunova N.D., Paducheva E.V. Origins, problems and categories of pragmatics. Enter, article. / New in foreign linguistics. Issue 16: Linguistic pragmatics. - M.: Progress, 1985. S.3-39.

16. Arutyunova N.D. Pragmatics f Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. -M., 1998. S. 389-390.

17. Arutyunova N.D. About shame and conscience / Logical analysis of language: Languages ​​of ethics. M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000. - S.54-79.

18. Aspects of general and particular linguistic theory of text. M.: Nauka, 1982. - 192 p.

19. Augustinavichute A. Socionics: introduction. / Comp. L. Filippov. M, St. Petersburg: ACT Publishing House, 1998. - 448 p.2 0. Augustine A. Socionics: Psychotypes. Tests. / Comp. L. Filippov. M.-SP6.: Publishing house ACT, 1998. - 416 p.

20. Akhlibinsky B.V., Khrylenko N.I. Quality theory in science and practice: Methodological analysis. Leningrad: publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1989. - 200 p.

21. Akhmatova A. Works in two volumes. Moscow: Pravda, 1990.

22. Babkin A.M. Word in context and dictionary / Modern Russian lexicography. 1976. Leningrad: Science, 1977. - S.3-36.

23. Balaban P.M., Zakharov I.S. Education and development: common ground two phenomena. M.: Nauka, 1992. - 152 p.

24. Balashov N.I. The problem of reference in the semiotics of poetry / Context. Literary and theoretical research M.: Nauka, 1984. - S.150-166.

25. Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Culture of communication and semiosis / Ethnosign functions of culture. -M.: Nauka, 1991. -S.43-57.

26. Bell R.T. Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods and problems. / Ed. A.D. Schweitzer. M.: International relations, 1980. - 320 p.

27. Blumenau D.I. The problem of curtailing scientific information. L.: Nauka, 1982. - 148 p.

28. Bovtenko M.A. Theoretical foundations of the linguo-methodological assessment of the quality of language teaching software. The manuscript of the dissertation philol. Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1998. - 21 p.

29. Bogdanov B.B. Contextualization of the sentence / Sentence and text: semantics, pragmatics and syntax: interuniversity. Sat. Art. L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1988. - S.25-27.

30. Bogin G.I. Intentionality as a means of leading to semantic worlds / Understanding and interpretation of the text: Sat. scientific works. -Tver: publishing house of TSU, 1994. S. 12-19.

31. Bogin G.I. Schemes of actions of the reader when understanding the text: Proc. allowance. Kalinin: publishing house of KGU, 1989. - 70 p.

32. Bogin G.I. Philological hermeneutics: Textbook. Kalinin: publishing house of KGU, 1982. 86 p.

33. Bogin G.I. Modern linguodidactics: Textbook. - Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1980. 61 p.

34. Bodalev A.A. Psychology of Personality. M.: Moscow State University, 1988. - 250 p.

35. Brandes M.P. Style and translation. M.: high school, 1988. - 127p.

36. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Mental predicates in the aspect of aspekgology / Logical analysis of language: problems of intensional contexts. M.: Nauka, 1989. - S.31-52.

37. Bulygina, T.V., Shmelev, A.D. Linguistic conceptualization of the world (based on Russian grammar). - M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1997. -576 p.

38. Buslaev F.I. Teaching the native language: Textbook. M.: Enlightenment, 1992. - 512 p.

39. Vasiliev S.A. Synthesis of meaning in the creation and understanding of the text. - Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988. 240 p.

40. Vasilyeva A.N. Fundamentals of culture of speech. M.: Russian language, 1990. -247 p.47. Velichko L.I. Working with text in Russian lessons: A guide for the teacher. M.: Enlightenment, 1983. - 128 p.

41. Verbitsky A.A. Active learning in higher education: contextual approach: method, manual. -M.: Higher school, 1991. 207 p.

42. Vlasenkov A.I. Developing teaching of the Russian language: (grades 4-8). A guide for teachers. M.: Education, 1982. - 208 p.

43. Wolf E.M. Emotional states and their representation in language / Logical analysis of language: problems of intensional contexts. -M.: Nauka, 1989. S.56-74.

44. Questions of theory and methods of teaching the Russian language in higher and cf. school: Sat. scientific works. Tver: publishing house of TGU, 1991. - 152 p.

45. Vygotsky L. S. Psychology: Collection. M.: April-Press, 2000. -1007p.

46. ​​Gadamer G.G. Truth and method. Moscow: Progress, 1988. - 704 p.

47. Gak V.G. Statement and situation / Problems of structural linguistics. 1972. - M.: Nauka, 1973. - S.349 - 373.

48. Galperin I.R. Text as an object of linguistic research. -M.: Nauka, 1981. 139s.

49. Hermeneutic Analysis: Philological Aspects of Understanding: Textbook / Pod general ed. N.V. Khalina. Barnaul: publishing house of ASU, 1998.-91s.

50. Hermeneutics: history and modernity (critical essays). M.: Thought, 1985. - 303 p.61. Getmanova A.D. Logics. M.: New school, 1995. - 416 p.

51. Gladkiy A.V., Melchuk I.A. Elements of mathematical linguistics. M.: Nauka, 1969. - 192 p.

52. Gladkiy A.V. Syntactic structures of natural language in automated communication systems. - M.: Nauka, 1985. 144 p.

53. Golev N.D. Some aspects of determination of the content of language units / Determinative aspect of the functioning of significant language units: linguistic and non-linguistic factors: interuniversity. Sat. Art. - Barnaul: ATU publishing house, 1993. S. 14-28.

54. Gorel i kova M.I., Magomedova D.M. Linguistic analysis of a literary text. M.: Russian language, 1989. - 152 p.

55. Grabska M. Potential vocabulary of students. Principles of its description and classification / Vocabulum et vocabularium: Sat. scientific works on lexicography / Ed. V.V. Dubichinsky. Kharkov, 1995. - Issue 2. - P.16-26.

56. Gritsenko V.I., Kanygin Yu.M., Mikhalevich B.C. The main features of informatics / Methodological problems of cybernetics and informatics: materials methodologist, philosoph. seminar. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1986. - S.24-36.

57. Gulenko V.V., Typtsenko V.P. Jung at school: Socionics - inter-age pedagogy: Textbook - method, manual. Novosibirsk: publishing house of Novosibirsk University, 1998. - 268 p.

58. Gumilyov N. Favorites. M.: Enlightenment, 1990. - 383 p.

59. Gusev S.S., Tulchinsky I.V. The problem of understanding in philosophy. Philosophical and epistemological analysis. M.: Politizdat, 1985. -192p.

60. Dyck van T.A. Language. Cognition. Communication. M.: Progress, 1988.-310s.

61. Deikina A.D. Novozhilova F.A. Thumbnail texts in Russian language lessons: a teacher's guide. M.: Nauka, 1998. - 144 p.

62. Dikaya L. Is it necessary to take into account the individual styles of self-regulation of the psychophysiological state of the student in the process of his education? / Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - S.222-236.

63. Doblaev L.P. The semantic structure of the educational text and the problems of its understanding. M.: Pedagogy, 1982. - 176 p.

64. Dobrovolskaya V.V. Flexible learning model and optimization perspectives educational process/ Linguodidactic aspects of language description and a flexible learning model. Problems and prospects: Sat. articles. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1997. - S. 186-189.

65. Donskaya T.K. The developing function of educational texts / Theory and practice of creating communicatively oriented individualized textbooks of the Russian language: Proceedings. report and message intl. conf. Tallinn: Tartu University Publishing House, 1988.-S. 310

66. Dosnon O. Development of creativity: creativity and learning / Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - S.66-67.

67. Druzhinin V.G. Diagnosis of common cognitive abilities/ Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. -S.57-61.

68. Dridze T.M Language and social Psychology. Proc. allowance / Ed. prof. A.A. Leontiev. M.: Higher school, 1980. - 224 p.

69. Dubininsky B.B. Antinomies of lexicography. / Vocabulum et vocabularium: Sat. scientific works on lexicography / Ed.

70. V.V.Dubichinsky. -Issue 2. Kharkov, 1995. -S.65-71.82. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect: a stratification study: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philol. Sciences. SPb., 1995. - 50s.

71. Foal T.V. From logical and grammatical principles to cognitive methodology / Linguistics and School: Abstracts of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference / ed. Yu.V.Trubnikova. - Barnaul: ATU Publishing House, 2000. - S.9-11.

72. Zhinkin N.I. On code transitions in inner speech // Questions of Linguistics. 1964. - No. 6. - P.5-10.

73. Jordan A. New learning models: progress compared to constructivism? // Perspectives: Comparative Research in Education. 1996. - Volume 25. - No. 1. - S. 11186.3alevskaya A.A. Understanding the text. Psycholinguistic aspect.

74. Kalinin: publishing house of KGU, 1988. 204 p. 87.3 Ernetsky P.V. Linguistic aspects of speech activity / Language communication: processes and units. - Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988. - S.36-41.

75. Zimnyaya I.A. Psychological aspects of learning to speak in foreign language. M.: Nauka, 1978. - 185 p.

76. Issers O.S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philol. Sciences. Yekaterinburg, 1999. - 52 p.

77. Kamenskaya O.L. Text and communication. M: Higher school, 1990. 152p.

78. Kapinos V.I. Work on the development of speech / Improving the methods of teaching the Russian language: Sat. articles. M .: Education, 1981. - S. 35-42.

79. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M.: Nauka, 1987. -264 p.

80. Karaulov Yu.N. Linguistic construction and thesaurus literary language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 368 p.

81. Kartasheva L. Determination of the student's individual style according to the content-cognitive components of activity / Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. M.: publishing house of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - P.276

82. Kasevich V.B. Morphology. Semantics. Syntax. M.: Nauka, 1988. -309s.

83. Kemerov V.E. Consciousness. Methodology. post-industrial society. Intentionality // Modern Philosophical Dictionary. M, - Bishkek - Yekaterinburg, 1996. - 608s.

84. Kemmel G.A. On the methodological possibilities of using poetic examples // Russian language at school. 1971. - No. 3. - S.4-7.

85. Kim I.E. To the construction of a dictionary of reflective vocabulary / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstract. report and message int. scientific conf. Ekaterinburg: publishing house of the Ural State University, 1995. -S. 138-139.

86. Kpyukanov I.E. Units of speech activity and units of speech communication // Language communication: processes and units. - Kalinin: KSU, 1988. S. 43-46.

87. Kpyukanov I.E. Dynamics of intercultural communication: towards the construction of a new conceptual apparatus: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philologist Sciences. Saratov: publishing house of the Saratov State University, 1999. -52 p.

88. Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. -M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. 296p.

89. Kozycheva. E.P. On the influence of multi-level properties of individuality on teaching foreign language dialogic speech (to the formulation of the problem) / Man as an integral system: interuniversity coll. scientific tr. Pyatigorsk: publishing house of the Pyatigorsk Pedagogical Institute, 1988. - P.131.

90. Kozhin A.N., Krylova O.A., Odintsov V.V. Functional types of Russian speech. M.: Higher school, 1982. - 223 p.

91. Kolshansky G.V. contextual semantics. M: Nauka, 1980. -149 p.

92. Kolshansky G.V. Communicative function and structure of language. -M: Nauka, 1984. 175 p.

93. Komlev N.G. Word in speech: denotative aspects. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1992. -216 p.

94. Kornilov Yu. On the differences between the metacognitions of educational and professional activity/ Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - S. 192 - 194.

95. Kochetkova T.V. Linguistic personality of the bearer of the elite speech culture: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philol. Sciences. Saratov, 1999. - 54 p.

96. Krasnykh V.V. Some aspects of text psycholinguistics / Linguistic and stylistic and linguodidactic problems of communication: Sat. articles / ed. A.I. Izotova, V.V. Krasnykh. M.: MALP, 1996. -S.106-108.

97. Krasnykh V.V. The structure of communication in the light of the linguo-cognitive approach (communicative act, discourse, text): Author. dis. doc. philol. Sciences. M., 1999. - 51 p.

98. Brief psychological dictionary. Rostov n\D: publishing house "Phoenix", 1998. - 512 p.

99. Krysin L.P. Language proficiency: linguistic and socio-cultural aspects / Language culture - ethnos: collection of articles. / ed. S.A. Arutyunova. - M.: Nauka, 1994. - S.66-78.

100. Kubryakova E.S. The nominative aspect of speech activity. - M.: Nauka, 1986.-156s.

101. Kuznetsova L.M. On the selection of didactic material for the lessons of the Russian language and the Russian language at school. 1985. - No. 3. - P.8-12.

102. The culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. M.: Nauka, 1986. - 440 p.

103. Kuntsevich V.M. About uncertainty in modern natural science and Informatics I Methodological problems of cybernetics and informatics: materials metodol. philosophy seminar. - Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1986. S. 142-151.

104. Kupalova A.Yu. Tasks of improving the system of teaching methods for the Russian language / Improving the methods of teaching the Russian language: Sat. articles. M .: Education, 1981. - S. 5-13.

105. Leontiev A.N. Language, speech, speech activity. M.: Enlightenment, 1969. - 214 p.

106. Linguistic foundations of language teaching. - M.: Nauka, 1983. 272 ​​p.

107. Linguistic analysis at school and university: Interuniversity Sat. scientific works. Voronezh: publishing house of Voronezh University, 1983. - 160 p.

108. Linguodidactic aspects of language description and a flexible learning model. Problems and prospects: Sat. articles. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1997.-336 p.

109. Linguistic and stylistic and linguodidactic problems of communication: Sat. articles. -M.: MALP, 1997. 120 p.

110. Logical analysis of language: problems of intensional contexts. M.: Nauka, 1989. - 286 p.

111. Loseva L.M. How the text is built: A guide for teachers. - M.: Enlightenment, 1980. 94 p.

112. Lvov M.R. Methods for the development of students' speech // Russian language at school. 1985. - No. 4. - P.42-48.

113. Lvov M.R. Fundamentals of the theory of speech: textbook. allowance. M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2000. - 248 p.

114. Lyapon M.V. Estimated situation and verbal modeling / Language and personality: Sat. scientific Art. / ed. Yu.N.Karaulova. M.: Nauka, 1989. - S.24-33.

115. Mandelstam O.E. Works. In 2 vols. T.1. Poems. - M.: Fiction, 1990. 638 p.

116. Markelova T.V. Semantics of evaluation and means of its expression in Russian: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philol. Sciences M.: Moscow Pedagogical University, 1996. - 53 p.

117. Markus S. Teretic-set models of languages. M.: Nauka, 1970. - 332 p.

118. Matkhanova I.P. Functions of emotional state predicates: potential and implementation / Linguistic personality: the problem of choosing and interpreting signs in the text: interuniversity coll. scientific tr. -Novosibirsk: Publishing house of NGPU, 1994. S.47-48.

119. Matkhanova I.P., Tripolskaya T.A. Interpretive component in the language and creative activity of the speaker / Linguistic personality: the problem of choice and interpretation of signs in the text: interuniversity coll. scientific tr. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of NGPU, 1994. -S.117-118.

120. Matgoshkin A.M. Problem situations in thinking and learning. -M.: Pedagogy, 1972. 168 p.

121. Makhmutov M.I. organization problem learning at school. Book for teachers. M.: Enlightenment, 1977. - 240 p.

122. Meged V., Ovcharov A. Characters and relationships. M.: Bustard, 2002. - S.90-102.

123. Melyukhin S.G. Matter // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. -M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1989. S. 349-350.

124. Methodology for the development of speech in the lessons of the Russian language: Book for teachers / Ed. T.A. Ladyzhenskaya. M.: Enlightenment, 1991. - 240 p.

125. Methodological problems of linguistics. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1988.-216 p.

126. Methodological consciousness in modern science. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1989. - 336 p.

127. Methodology in the field of theory and practice. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1988.-306 p.

128. Minsky M. Frames for knowledge representation. M.: Energy, 1979.- 151 p.

129. Mironova H.H. Evaluative discourse: problems of semantic analysis // Izv. RAN. SLA. M. 1997 - v. 56. - No. 4. - S.52-59.

130. Modeling of language activity in intelligent systems: Sat. articles / ed. A.E. Kibrika. M.: Nauka, 1987. - 279 p.

131. Mol A. Sociodynamics of culture. M.: Progress, 1973. - 406 p.

132. Morkovkin V.V. On the scope and content of the concept of "theoretical lexicography" // Questions of linguistics. 1987. -№6. - P.33-43.

133. Murzin L.N. Anthropological niche in linguistic science / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstract. report and message int. scientific conf. Yekaterinburg: publishing house of the Ural State University, 1995. - S.11-12.

134. Murzin L.N., Smenok I.N. How to teach language? (on the basics of linguodidactics). Perm: Publishing House Perm. un-ta, 1994. - 136 p.

135. Murzin L.N., Stern A.S. Text and its perception. Sverdlovsk: publishing house of the Ural University, 1991. - 172 p.

136. Napolnova T.V. Activation of the mental activity of the student in the lessons of the Russian language: A guide for the teacher. M.: Enlightenment, 1983. - 111 p.

137. Nikitin M.V. Fundamentals of the linguistic theory of meaning. M.: Higher school, 1988. - 168 p.

138. Nikitina E.I. Connected text in Russian language lessons (from the experience of a teacher). M.: Education, 1966. -328 p.

139. Nikitina E.I. Russian speech. Textbook on the development of coherent speech for 5-7 cells. general education institutions / Nauch. ed. V.V. Babaitseva. M.: Enlightenment, 1996. - 191 p.

140. Nikitina S.E. Linguistic consciousness and self-consciousness of personality in folk culture / Language and personality: Sat. scientific articles / ed. Yu-N Karaulova. -M.: Nauka, 1989. S.34 -40.

141. Nikolsky L.B. Synchronous sociolinguistics. M.: Nauka, 1976. - 168 p.

142. Nikonov V.M. Linguistic pragmatics and language didactics: theory and practice / Modern pragmalinguistic studies of Romance, Germanic and Russian languages: Sat. scientific articles. -Voronezh: publishing house of the Voronezh state. un-ta, 1996. S. 119-124.

143. Novikov A.I. Semantics of the text and its formalization. M.: Nauka, 1983. - 215 p.

144. Novikov L.A. Artistic text and its analysis. M.: Russian language, 1988. - 304 p.

145. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M.: Higher school, 1982. - 272 p.

146. Novikova T.F. Ways and forms of working with text in the Russian language lesson / Linguistic and didactic foundations for working on text: a collection of scientific. articles. Kursk: publishing house of Kursk ped. un-ta, 1997. -p.14-15.

147. New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 16: Linguistic pragmatics. M.: Progress, 1985. - 501 p.

148. Odintsov V.V. Text style. M.: Nauka, 1980. - 263 p.

149. Ozerskaya V.P. On the linguistic content and educational value of examples // Russian language at school. 1980. - No. 4. - P.37-43.

150. Ostrikova T. A. Didactic material as a means of teaching / Bulletin of the Khakass University. N.F.Katanova. Issue 1. Series: Linguistics. Abakan: Publishing House of the Khakass University, 2000. - S. 144-152.

151. Paducheva E.V. Semantic studies (semantics of time and aspect in the Russian language; semantics of narrative). M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1996. - 464 p.

152. Pankratiev V.F. system of epistemology. M.: Nauka, 1993. - 306s.

153. Panova L.G. Space in the poetic world of O. Mandelstam / Logical analysis of language: Languages ​​of spaces. M .: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000. - P. 429-440.

154. Panchenko T., Panchenko A. Modules of perfection, harmony, health and success. Barnaul, 1993. - 74 p.

155. Party B. Montague grammar, mental representations and reality / Semiotics. M.: Rainbow, 1983. - S.285-305.

156. Pasternak B. Collected works in 5 volumes. M .: Khudozh. literature, 1989.

157. Pakhnova T.M. Text as the basis for creating a developing speech environment in Russian lessons // Russian language at school. 2000. -№4.-S.4-11.

158. Pedagogy of self-determination and the problematic search for freedom. -Barnaul, AKIPKRO, 1997. 130 p.

159. Petrov V.V. Philosophical aspects of reference / New in foreign linguistics. Issue. 13: Linguistic problems of reference. -M.: Progress, 1985. S.409-413.

160. Petrova I.A. Some aspects of the theory and use of the distinction between language and speech / The functioning of language and the norm: interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Gorky: GGPI im. M. Gorky, 1986. - S.93-101.

161. Popov A. A. Pedagogy and youtorism in the space of transcendent reality (substantiation of the place of origin of open education) / Pedagogy of self-determination and humanitarian practices: issue 1. Barnaul: publishing house AKIPCRO, 1999. -p.21-34.

162. Popov S.A. The main problems of text linguistics (on the material of German linguistics of the last two decades) / Language and discourse: cognitive and communicative aspects. Tver: publishing house of TSU, 1997. - S.75-80.

163. Pragmatics and typology of communicative language units: Sat. scientific works. Dnepropetrovsk: publishing house of DSU, 1989. - 136 p.

164. Pragmatic and textual characteristics of predicative and communicative units: Sat. scientific works. Krasnodar: publishing house Kub. state un-ta, 1987. - 118s.

165. Sentence and text: semantics, pragmatics and syntax: interuniversity. Sat. Art. L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1988. - 167 p.

166. Problems of pedagogy methodology and research methods. / Ed. M.A. Danilova and N.I. Boldyrev. M.: Pedagogy, 1971. -352 p.

167. Program and methodological materials: Russian language. 10-11 grades. M.: Bustard, 2001. - 192 p.

168. Psychodidactics of higher and secondary education: abstract. second All-Russian scientific and practical. conf. Barnaul: publishing house of BSPU, 1998. -316 p.

169. Psychology and Pedagogy: Textbook for universities. M.: Center, 1999. - 256 p.

170. Psychology of personality in the works of domestic psychologists / Under the general. ed. L.V. Kulikova. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 480 p.

171. Raven D. Pedagogical testing: problems, misconceptions, prospects. M.: Kogito-Centre, 1999. - 144 p.

172. Development of speech: theory and practice of teaching: book. for the teacher. - M.: Enlightenment, 1991. 342 p.

173. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Lectures on general linguistics. M.: Nauka, 1990.-p.298-300.

174. Rozhkova G.I. Fundamentals of teaching the Russian language in retrospective reading and perspective / Linguistic and didactic aspects of language description and a flexible learning model. Problems and prospects: Sat. articles. M.: Moscow State University, 1997. - 336 p.

175. Rubakin H.A. Psychology of the reader and books. Moscow: Book, 1977. 264 p.

176. Ruzavin G.I. The problem of understanding and hermeneutics. / Hermeneutics: history and modernity (critical essays). M.: Thought, 1985. - S.163-175.

177. Russian verbal vocabulary: denotative space. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1999. 460 p.

179. Ryabtseva N.K. Ethical knowledge and their "objective" embodiment / Logical analysis of language: Languages ​​of ethics. M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000. - S. 178-184.

180. Sedov K.F. Communicative strategies of discursive behavior and the formation of a linguistic personality / Linguistic personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects: Sat. scientific works. - Volgograd: Change, 1998. p. 12-14.

181. Semenyuk H.H. Norma / Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1998. - S. 337

182. Sidorov E.E. Fundamentals of the system concept of the text. The manuscript of the dissertation of Dr. Philol. Sciences. Tashkent, 1986. - 420 p.

183. Systems in cybernetic aspects of cognition. Riga: Zinatne, 1985.-324 p.

184. Slavin A.B. Visual image in the structure of knowledge. M: Politizdat, 1971. -271 p.

185. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes / Ed. A.P. Evgenyeva. -M.: Russian language, 1981 -1984.

186. Snitko T.N. Linguistic personality as a methodological problem / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstract. report and message int. scientific conf. Yekaterinburg: publishing house of the Ural State University, 1995. - S.36-37.

187. The current situation and the preparation of a teacher of the Russian language in a teacher training university: abstracts. M.: MGLU, 1997. -56s.

188. Modern textual criticism: theory and practice. M.: Heritage, 1997. - 200 p.

189. Solganik G.Ya. syntactic style. M.: Higher School, 1991.-182 p.

191. Improving the methods of teaching the Russian language: Sat. articles. -M.: Enlightenment, 1981. 160 p.

192. Improving the style of coherent speech of students in the lessons of the Russian language and literature: interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Moscow: MOPI im. N.K. Krupskaya, 1990. - 187 p.

193. Sorokin N. A. Didactics. Textbook for ped. in-comrade. M.: Enlightenment, 1974. - 222 p.

194. Spirkin A.G., Yudin E.G., Yaroshevsky M.G. Methodology // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Soviet encyclopedia, 1989. - S.359-360.

195. Stepanov G.V. Typology of language situations and language conditions in countries. M.: Nauka, 1976. - 224 p.

196. Stevenson Ch. Emogivnoe meaning / New in foreign linguistics. Issue 16: Linguistic pragmatics. M.: Progress, 1985.-S.141-150.

197. Stylistics and pragmatics: abstract. report scientific conf. Perm: publishing house of Perm University, 1997. - 163 p.

198. Stogniy A.A., Glazunov N.M. Integration of knowledge in database systems / Methodological problems of cybernetics and informatics: materials metodol. philosophy seminar. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1986. -S. 39-57.

199. Stone E. Psychopedagogy. Psychological theory and teaching practice / ed. N.F. Talyzina. M.: Pedagogy, 1984. - 472 p.

200. Susov I.P. Activity, consciousness, discourse and the language system / Language communication: processes and units, collection of articles. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988. - P.7-13.

201. Sukhikh S.A. The structure of communicants in communication / Language communication: processes and units: Sat. articles. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988. - S.22-29.

202. Sukhikh S.A. Linguistic personality traits / Communicative and functional aspect of language units: Sat. scientific works. Tver, publishing house of TSU, 1993. - S.85-90.

203. Tarasova I.P. The structure of the personality of the communicant and speech influence // Questions of linguistics. 1993. - No. 5. - S. 13-18.

204. Text as an object of linguistic and psychological-pedagogical research: abstract. brought, scientific-theoretical conf. Perm: publishing house of the Perm state. un-ta, 1982. - 98s.

205. Theory and practice of creating communicative-oriented individualized textbooks of the Russian language: tez. report and message intl. conf. Tallinn: Tartu University Press, 1988.-287 p.

206. Ter-Avakyan S.G. Linguistic aspect of the problem of reference / Pragmatic and textual characteristics of predicative and communicative units: Sat. scientific works. Krasnodar: publishing house Kub. state un-ta, 1987. - S. 64-69.

207. Tugushev R.Kh. Systemic personology: qualitative and quantitative analysis. Saratov: State Publishing House. UC "College", 1998.-272 p.

208. Turaeva Z.Ya. Linguistics of the text (Text: structure and semantics) - M .: Education, 1986. 127 p.

209. Lesson of the Russian language at the present stage (collection of articles from work experience). A guide for teachers. M.: Enlightenment, 1978. - 144 p.

210. Fedorenko L.P. Principles of teaching the Russian language: a guide for teachers. M.: Enlightenment, 1973. - 160 p.

211. Fedorenko L.P. Patterns of mastering native speech: tutorial. M.: Enlightenment, 1984. - 160s.

212. Figurovsky I.A. Syntax of the whole text and student's written works M.: State Educational and Pedagogical Publishing House of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1961. - 171 p.

213. Cold M., Gelfman E., Demidova JI. On the psychological purpose of the school textbook / Cognitive learning: current state and prospects: Sat. articles. - M.: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.- P.153-156.

214. Tsvetaeva M. Poems and poems. Alma-Ata: Zhalyn, 1988. -400s.

215. Tselishchev V.V. Logical truth and empiricism. Novosibirsk: publishing house Nauka, 1974. - 113 p.

216. Human factor in language: Language mechanisms of expressiveness. M.: Nauka, 1991. -214 p.

217. Cheremisina N.V. Semantics of possible worlds and lexico-semantic acts M.: Nauka, 1982. - 90 p.

218. Chugrov C.B. Stereotypes in the public mind of Japan / Japan: culture and society in the era of the scientific and technological revolution. M .: Education, 1985. - S. 112-126.

219. Shabes V.Ya. Event and text. Moscow: Higher school, 1989 - 175 p.

220. Shansky N.M. Russian linguistics and linguodidactics. M.: Russian language, 1985. - 239 p.

221. Shansky N.M., Makhmudov Sh.A. Philological analysis of a literary text. St. Petersburg: Special Literature, 1999. -319p.

223. Shatunovsky I.B. Propositional attitudes: will and desire / Logical analysis of language: problems of intensional contexts. M.: Nauka, 1989. - S. 155-183.

224. Shakhnarovich A.M., Yurieva N.M. Psycholinguistic analysis of semantics and grammar (based on the ontogenesis of speech). Moscow: Nauka, 1990. 168 p.

225. Shvedova N.Yu. Paradoxes of the dictionary entry / National specificity of the language and its reflection in the normative dictionary: Sat. articles / Rep. ed. Yu.N.Karaulov. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S.6-11.

226. Schweitzer AD Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M.: Nauka, 1977. 176 p.

227. Shannon K. Works on the theory of information and cybernetics. M.: publishing house of foreign. liters, 1963. - 829 p.

228. Shcherbin V.K. On the methodological significance of constructing a detailed vocabulary typology! Vocabulum et vocabularium: Sat. scientific works on lexicography / Ed. V.V. Dubichinsky. -Kharkov, 1995. Issue 2. - P.9-16.

229. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties. M.: Nauka, 1977. - 168 p.

230. Shmeleva T.V. Sentence and situation in the syntactic concept of T.P. Lomtev // Philological Sciences. 1983. - No. 3. - P.2-48.

231. Shpet G.G. Hermeneutics and its problems / Context. M.: Nauka, 1991.-S. 23-40.

232. Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis. M.: Progress, 1996. - 344 p.

233. Language and discourse: Cognitive and communicative aspects: Sat. scientific Proceedings / Ed. I.P. Susov. Tver: Tver state. un-t, 1997. ? -84s.

234. Jung K. Psychological types. M.: "University Book", 1996.-717 p.

235. Language and personality: Sat. scientific Art. / ed. Yu.N.Karaulova. M.: Nauka, 1989. - 216 p.

236. Language activity in the aspect of linguistic pragmatics: Sat. reviews. M.: Nauka, 1984. - 222 p.

237. Linguistic personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects: Sat. scientific tr. Volgograd: Change, 1998. - 234p.

238. Linguistic personality: problems of designation and understanding: abstract. report scientific conf. Volgograd: Volgograd Publishing House. ped. University "Change", 1997. - 144p.

239. Linguistic personality: the problem of choice and interpretation of signs in the text: interuniversity. collection of scientific papers. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of NGPU, 1994. - 124 p.

240. Language nomination. Types of names. M.: Nauka, 1977. -S.86-104.

241. Yakovleva E.S. Fragments of the Russian language picture of the world (models of space, time and perception). M.: Publishing house "Gnosis", 1994. - 344 p.

242. Yasnitsky Yu.G., Yasnitskaya I.A. Problems of creating an automatic computer dictionary / Vocabulum et vocabularium: Sat. scientific works on lexicography / Ed.

243. V.V.Dubichinsky. Kharkov, 1995. - Issue 2. - S. 62-65.

244. Summary linguosocionic table

245. Character of function Code sign Type of author according to K. Jung Wu Type of author according to A. Augustinavichute Leading aspect in mastering the situation of reality Type of intensional context Basic propositional attitude

246. Rational ER. Thinking Logic Material Objects and Substances

247. E E Emotional Ethic Energy and emotional state of objects Emotional E.g., have fun

248. Ego Emotional and energy relationships between objects, ethical systems Ethical Love/hate

249. IT Coordination and organization of objects in time, historical systems Anticipate

250. Linguosocionic grammar (laws of combination of intentions (propositional attitudes)

251. To rationalize the leading function of perception, a rational function is necessary. The laws of combination are the same: an extrovert leader assumes an introvert creative one, and vice versa.1. Text code 1.s E L E L F t F t r R r R I s

252. N. L E s I t F L E R p t F s I R p

253. F p p R p R I s I s E L E L F t

254. Code ispsh \ R t t F s I R r L E s I t F L E1. Digger

255. T d A 3 p p D M s p k k 3 k r p1LFR 3 k E p v h r O d

256. D t 3 A p p M d p c c c c c 3 p p

258. A 3 t D r p 3 k k k s p d M p p

259. ESPT odch r v p E 3 k

260. A d t p r k 3 k k p s M d p p

261. RF dorch v p E k 33 k r t d A 3 p p d M s p k k

262. ETPS 4 genus 3 k E p vk 3 pr d t 3 A p p M d p c c k

263. M p h d o c 3 E p r

264. D M p p A 3 t D r p 3 k k c p

265. FLIR E 3 code

266. M d p p 3 A d t p r k 3 k k p s

267. TESP E k 3 dorch v ps p k k 3 Kr p t d A 3 p p d M

268. FRIL p v h R o d 3 k En s k k k 3 pr d t 3 A p p M d

269. TPSE p v r h d o k 3 Ek k c p d M p p A 3 t dr p 3 k

270. FIES v p E 3 code rk k s s M d p p 3 Ad t pr k 3

271. D dual relationships (group 5a) A - activation (group 5a) 3 - mirror (group 3) T - identical (group 1) M - mirage (group 5a) DE business (group 3) PD - semi-dual relationships (group 5a) RO - related (group 2)

272. The first group "a" of comfort codes includes the following options:

273. Semi-dual intercode relations: almost identical to dual ones, but the power of suggestion is somewhat lower. Example: ROAR UTR8E.

Language is a sociocultural phenomenon that a person forms in the course of his life. Currently, 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 more actively studied - 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 take 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 what is in work of art the relationship between the "linguistic personality", the artistic image and the image of the author. 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 is to designate a closed community or social group that differs from the overwhelming 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 common feature: they all abound with 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 English language, information technologies, 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, for any modern, educated person it is natural 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. A person's values, 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 presenting facts and broadcasting the 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, the 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.