Stereotype Component In The Structure Of Ethnocultural Archetype (On Internet-Blogs)

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to identify ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes in linguistic consciousness of the bearers of North Ossetic linguistic culture. Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to the study of ethnic stereotypes, cognitive-discursive, and interpretational analysis are used in the research. The study of the phenomenon of ethnic consciousness involves the analysis of two levels - the level of community in general and the level of an individual. The article considers the basic features of auto- and hetero-stereotyping of an ethno-cultural type on the material of Internet blogs. The described ethnic stereotypes reflect archetypical “we-images” and “they-images”, which serve as guidelines for communicative behavior. The authors proceed from the assumption that ethnic hetero-stereotypes are formed on the basis of those differentiating features that contribute to alienation between ethnic groups and within ethnic groups and subgroups. Ethnic stereotypes, as a rule, distort objective facts and overgrow with surreal layers, which exist separately from the real cognitive characteristics of an ethnos / sub-ethnos. This kind of stereotypes naturally carries ambivalent evaluation. The axiology of images verbalized in national consciousness of representatives of other linguistic and cultural communities or intra-ethnic groups not only captures their own worldview, but also reflects internal and external sociopolitical processes. This article contributes to intra-ethnic and inter-ethnic communication, conflict management and ethno-linguistics.

Keywords: Auto-stereotypehetero-stereotypesethno cultural archetypelinguistic consciousnessinternet-discourseinternet-blog

Introduction

This article is relevant in connection with the increasing interest of modern ethno-, socio-and psycholinguistics in the study of linguistic consciousness of mono- and multilingual societies in modern mass media culture (Gakayev, 2003; Mityagina & Sidorova, 2018). The purpose of this article is to identify ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes in linguistic consciousness of bearers of North Ossetic linguistic culture. The material of the study was presented by the verbal and creolized texts of Internet discourse.

Problem Statement

This study uses the theory of linguocultural types as a methodological basis. This section of linguistic personology reveals and describes the concepts of typed personalities - generalized recognizable representatives of culture serving as indicators of ethno-cultural diversity (Karasik, 2002; Karasik & Yarmahov, 2006).

The study of the phenomenon of ethnic consciousness involves the analysis of two levels - the level of community in general and the level of an individual. Ethnic consciousness / self-awareness is understood as a sense of belonging to a particular ethnic group (emotional component), expressed in the self-determination of an individual as a member of this group, in ideas about the properties of an ethnos / nation, about a common historical past and origin, common values (rational component) (Sikevich, 1999).

Ethnic self-consciousness is usually interpreted as the concept that includes, along with ethnic identity, modal values, a system of ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes, socio-cultural attitudes and assessments (Soldatova, 1998).

Ethnic “I-image” and the “image of the other” constitute the substantial components of ethnofors self-awareness, recorded in cultural and historical monuments, traditions and rituals. According to V.V. Krasnykh, the images of different ethnos are always nationally marked (Krasnykh, 2002).

Ethnocultural stereotypes, being a type of social stereotypes, transmit a generalized understanding of the typical features that characterize any people, which is reflected in the writings of many linguists (Lippman, Kon, Tazhfel, Apresyan, Sorokin, Ryzhkov, Prokhorov, Krasnykh, Batygin, etc.). According to S. G. Ter-Minasova, they are the main sources providing objective information about national character (Ter-Minasova, 2000).

Research Questions

What ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes stand out in linguistic consciousness of North Ossetic linguistic culture bearers on the material of Internet blogs?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose set in the article is to identify ethnic auto- and hetero-stereotypes in linguistic consciousness of North Ossetic linguistic culture bearers.

Research Methods

Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to the study of ethnic stereotypes, cognitive-discursive, and interpretational analysis are used in the current research.

Findings

Belonging to a specific culture is determined by the presence of the basic core of knowledge, including the stereotypical one, transmitted in the process of socialization of an individual in a certain linguocultural community. Inter-ethnic and intercultural communication not only manifests, but also exacerbates ethnic stereotypes as stable schematic images, sometimes negatively evaluative or far from reality.

The ossetians live mainly in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania in the Republic of South Ossetia. They speak Ossetic, which includes two dialects - Digor and Iron (including widespread Kudar dialect).

The Ossetic national character is a fusion of diverse, usually contradictory ethnic characteristics, reflected in social dialects. Its dominant features are reasoned by the geopolitical position of North and South Ossetia, the history of nomadic ethnic group, adapted to conduct military operations in the mountains.

The Ossetic character is based on the love of freedom, disobedience to enslavers, attachment to traditions, “respect of elderly people, emotionality, and affection to their home, hospitality ( Уазæг – Хуыцауы уазæг «guest – God’s guest»; «Guest is a holy cause for an Ossetian») < . . . > .The Ossetians do not recognize any authorities, except for eldership (there were cases when high military ranked people served ordinary soldiers during the meal because they were older in age < . . . > .

Analyzing the phenomenon of a person in language, V.I. Karasik came to the necessity of distinguishing a linguistic personality as an individual or typed concept in a dynamic and static aspect. A linguistic personality typed in cultural aspect is a linguocultural archetype, a generalized view of a person based on relevant objective socially significant ethnic and socio-specific behavioral characteristics (Ter-Minasova, 2000; Karasik, 2002).

The cognitive features of the ethnocultural archetype of a kudar as a type of linguocultural concept, the content of which is a generalized image of a representative of this ethnic group within the linguistic culture, is based on the Ossetic mentality, which was formed under the influence of historical and cultural factors, geographical features of the territory of residence, social and psychological types of people forming ethnicity.

The ossetians ( ирæттæ ) are the Caucasian people, who, besides the ethnonym ир “an ossetian,” have kudars, dzhavts, and others.

In the Ossetic language there are two social strata - Digor and Iron dialects / languages, and in the structure of the Iron –there are Kudar dialects of South Ossetians.

The Ossetians, with rare exceptions, are multilingual: the North Ossetians speak Ossetic and Russian, the southern Ossetians speak Ossetic, Georgian and Russian. The northern dialects are influenced by the Russian language and culture, as well as the southern dialects are influenced by the Georgian language and culture.

Kudars ( къуыдар, къуыдайрæгтæ ; the singular number — къуыдайраг ) - a group of Ossetians, historically inhabiting the Kudar Gorge, located in the north-west of Dzau region of South Ossetia. The ethnonym Kudars in the common language of the residents of North Ossetia serves to nominate both the speakers of the Kudar-Dzhav dialect of the Ossetic language, and to designate the inhabitants of South Ossetia as a whole, along with the synonymous name of the Southerners.

From the position of the description of pejorative, V.I. Karasik considers the ethnic stereotype as a case of indicating the social status of a person in a different culture (Karasik, 2002; Karasik & Yarmahov, 2006). On the basis of the materials from Ossetic Internet blogs and forums, the most frequent designations of South Ossetians are Kudarts, Kudars, Southerners, and South brothers. Although the semantics of these nominations does not carry pejorative connotations, they become negatively marked due to attribute combinations and deixis:

< . . . > in Vladikavkaz in the 90s, nothing was said except “atsy kuydar (these are kudars)”; < . . . > the Kudars are accused of escalating the conflict between Ossetians and Ingushs < . . . > ; And I heard in response: “... aah, southerner ...”.

Along with the above ethnonyms, there are names of refugees representing the low social status of Kudars, and Gamsiks - a humiliating nickname formed on the basis of the last name of the Georgian Nazi president, who expelled them from the country and the republic, a metaphorical comparison with another ethnic group - gypsies - based on common functional similarities, behavior and character traits:

The words “Kudar” (for the designation of all South Ossetians) may be unpleasant to someone, as well as “gamsiks” (for these unfortunate refugees); < > although those refugees who settled in the villages and work conscientiously are very different from bazaar gamsiks; Yes, these Kudars are like gypsies!

The national-cultural identity, linguistic characteristics and mentality of the inhabitants of South Ossetia were largely shaped by the Georgian traditions, customs and language. The migrants in the 90s of the twentieth century left both South Ossetia and internal regions of Georgia and moved to North Ossetia, to the cities of Central Russia and abroad:

It is unpleasant to hear to the southern brothers, but they have more in common with the Georgians than with the Iron and the Digors; A child who grew up in a family of Iron and who speaks fluently in Iron, I was afraid of noisy people who came to their neighbors and spoke a foreign language; It is not a matter of language or accent, but of manner of speaking. Rudeness, laxity in pronunciation, probably, it was unpleasant;

I think we are different; < . . . > I haven’t found any common custom with the Kudars. We, the indigenous inhabitants, have a different mentality, a different culture, different customs < . . . > . For 20 years Kudars still give the place of the senior to bride and groom and dance Georgian dances. So they love their own < . . . > Georgian-Kudar. And when it’s profitable for them they are Kudars.

The outline of the cultural space of every ethnic group is made up of auto- and hetero-stereotypes: “The auto-stereotype and hetero-stereotype are not autonomous units, but structurally interdependent components of a single holistic concept of personal or group self-consciousness” (Tameryan & Valiyeva, 2012).

If auto-stereotypes are largely positive opinions, judgments, assessments of their own ethnic community, then hetero-stereotypes are a set of value judgments about other peoples, where the assessment poles depend on the historical experience of interaction between these peoples. Hetero-stereotypes are scarce in content and reflect only the most characteristic features of the described nation, as a rule, causing surprise, rejection, or intolerance. Ethnic hetero-stereotyping is based on a critical assessment, caused by deviations from its own normative notions according to the principle: “our own” is “good”, “alien” is “bad”.

By positive stereotypes, it is commonly understood a positive assessment or judgment about certain features of an ethnic group or ethos as a whole: I have always associated a Kudar with a strong, brave, hardworking and talented person; During and after the conflict with an Ingush, Kudar speakers were incredibly popular in Vladikavkaz; Our Southern brothers in 1992 < . . . > ; If an Ossetian thinks and speaks Georgian, he is an Ossetic, and it is shameful to call him a gamsik.

Negative stereotypes claim that a certain ethnic group has some negative features and is capable of undesirable or harmful actions towards another ethnic group: As for the gamsiks, they need to feed their families, and not grumble on the Internet. Now is the time of adventurous rogues; To be honest, I do not like Kudars. Not particular people. < . . . > I don’t like them as a community - so noisy, active, combative and self-confident < . . . > ;

In relation to any ethnic group, a number of stereotypes are revealed, containing both positive and negative components - ambivalent ethnic stereotypes. The controversial attitude towards the Kudar community in the North Ossetian community is reflected in detail in the Internet materials: To be honest, I do not like Kudar people. < . . . > at the same time, I am sure that the Ossetians can survive in general only because of the Kudars. They have passion, which has been lost in the north. They have a love of life.

In relation to any ethnic group, a number of stereotypes are revealed, containing both positive and negative components - ambivalent ethnic stereotypes. The controversial attitude towards the Kudar community in the North Ossetian community is reflected in detail in the Internet materials: To be honest, I do not particularly like Kudar people. < . . . > at the same time, I am sure that the Ossetians can survive in general only thanks to the Kudarians. They have passionarity, which has long been lost in the north. They have a love of life.

The ambivalence of the counter-stereotype (attributing features not to ethnic group as a whole, but to its individual “atypical” representatives) (Tameryan & Valiyeva, 2012) confirms the validity of the hetero-stereotype as a rule with exceptions: I also have a negative attitude to Kudars as wild, rough < . . . > even through 20 years of stay in the North (in North Ossetia). At the same time, I treat individuals well < . . . > ;

As a kind of ambivalent stereotype, we can distinguish a binary appositive stereotype: You know, I have noticed extremes among the Kudars: either they are polite or not, or they are educated or their messages are impossible to read.

Social stereotypes play an important role in intergroup, inter-ethnic and intercultural relations. According to A.A. Nalchadjian, social stereotypes are special psychological formations and appear as a part of prejudice (Nalchadzhyan, 2004).

Ethnic / social stereotype as a relatively stable simplified idea of moral, mental, physical, activity and other qualities typical of representatives of various ethnic communities, has a multi-attribute structure, including ascertaining and evaluative judgments that contribute to the formation of the regulatory type of behavior in relation to this ethnic group and affecting on the manifestation of affective ethnocentrism in inter-ethnic communication, when the reference point is the “own is good” scale, in contrast to “alien” is “bad”. Thus, its own ethnic picture of the world provides standards that serve to categorize and evaluate other ethnic groups.

It is believed that the emergence of ethnic stereotypes as simplified ideas about a particular social group is reasoned by the lack of information and / or biased ideas that have developed in society. At the same time, the cognitive mechanism of stereotyping is formed on the basis of affectively selected ethnic characteristics, causing emotional and psychological discomfort, moral and ethical rejection, containing oppressive axiology, which is opposed to the traditional ethnic mentality (negative stereotype); generating approval and a positive assessment (positive stereotype); marking the most noticeable traits and attributes, the peculiarities of a group, seeming strange, causing surprise, but not rejection of the representatives of another ethnic group (neutral stereotype); also allowing combinatorics of the varieties (ambivalent and contrarian stereotypes). The reduced image of another ethnos serves as orientation and disorientation, contributing to the preservation and transmission of cultural and historical experience, the protection of their ethnic values and the devaluation of alien ones.

The specificity of hetero-stereotyping of the South Ossetians by the North Ossetians is that the reason for the categorization is presented not by the external opposition “our own” - “alien”, since both the North and South Ossetians are Irons, but that the incorporation of “Alien” component into the structure of ethnic “I-image” (Another version of the picture of the world, Kudar dialect, Georgian culture). The degree of accentuation of this component determines the choice of axiological scale - positive, negative, ambivalent / contrary or neutral when forming a hetero-stereotype about kudars.

The depth of interiorization by South Ossetians of a foreign culture is manifested in general style of communication - aggressive communication, expressed in loud, articulated and quick speech (energy and threat, according to M.R. Luscher), broad gestures that violate North Ossetian communicative culture and contradict speech etiquette (Luscher, 1995).

For the general style of behavior of the Kudarans, motivation and rigid agency are characteristic, which does not coincide with the communicative norms of the North Ossetians and gives rise to a negative assessment and rejection.

As for “rejection”, it started in the early 90s, when a stream of Ossetians from the internal regions of Georgia rushed to the Republic of North Ossetia: these people spoke Russian poorly, and spoke Ossetic mixed up with the Georgian language. In addition, in terms of behavior, morals and way of life, these people were more like Georgians than Ossetians; And I do not want to hear Kudar speech in my city! Unfortunately, after the war, the Kudars became synonymous with rudeness. Because of previous genocides, Sunzha, Nogir, etc. “appeared”. The refugees of that time quite easily and without conflict fit into the life of the North of Ossetia due to the stability in the state. The refugees of the 90s came to us in an era of collapse, unemployment and restructuring; their children did not behave like I was taught to behave, their parents caused the ill-concealed contempt of all the neighbors; Kudars were considered as such rogue ones. They come from the villages to the city, walk in noisy crowds through the streets < . . . > . And fight with everyone.

The basic value orientations of the South Ossetians are vitality, self-confidence, initiative, self-affirmation.

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the Kudars turned out to be more energetic, more adapted to the changing conditions of life, and, therefore, may have occupied corruption-attractive places. < . . . > The Kudars in this wild world, in my opinion, is the HOPE of Ossetia; for some reason, all the girls dreamed of marrying Kudars, because THEY WANT and CAN EARN. < . . . > they do not scorn any work, having the same higher education as others.

The phenomenon of kudars is in their optimism, the preservation of ethno-group identity, the ability to transform and develop in complex historical and cultural situations.

In general, for us, “wild kudars” it is good! We always have to prove that we all mean something. And it helps us to achieve in life, maybe even greater success than the so-called “local” achieve.

Conclusion

Thus, the perspective of intra-ethnic relations has a decisive influence on the nature of hetero-stereotyping, its content and orientation. The pragmatics of stereotypes as regulative elements of ethnic identity, combining the features of prejudice, attitudes, and other forms of standardized knowledge, are aimed at protecting positive ethnic identity without regard to the adequacy of content — truth or falsehood. For the general style of behavior of the Kudars, the motivation and rigid agency are typical, which does not coincide with the communicative norms of the North Ossetians and generates a negative assessment and rejection. As the result of the analysis of the factual material, it was established that the basic value orientations of the South Ossetians are vitality, self-confidence, initiative and self-affirmation. The peculiarities of Kudarans include optimism, ethnic group identity and the ability to transform and develop in difficult historical and cultural situations. The dynamics of the development of ethnic stereotypes , is reasoned not so much by social attitudes as common sense, but is vectorially directed from negative or ambivalent assessments towards neutral or positive.

References

  1. Gakayev, Z.Zh. (2003) Ethnic stereotypes in the press: For example, highlighting the conflict in Chechnya. Moscow: Friendship of People.
  2. Karasik, V.I. (2002). Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Change.
  3. Karasik, V.I., Yarmahov, E.A. (2006). Linguistic and Cultural type “English eccentric”. Moscow: Gnosis.
  4. Krasnykh, V.V. (2002). Ethnopsycholinguistics and cultural linguistics. Moscow: Gnosis.
  5. Luscher, M.R. (1995). Personality Signals: Role-playing games and motives. Voronezh: MODEK.
  6. Nalchadzhyan, A. A. (2004). Ethnopsychology. St Petersburg: Etnos.
  7. Sikevich, Z. V. (1999). Sociology and psychology of national relations. St Petersburg: Publishing house Mikhailov V. A.
  8. Soldatova, G.U. (1998). Psychology of ethnic tensions. Moscow: Mysl.
  9. Tameryan, T. Yu., Valiyeva, T. S. (2012). Linguistic and cultural types of “old man” and “ацæргæ адæймаг” in the linguistic consciousness of Russians and Ossetians. Vladikavkaz: SOGU.
  10. Ter-Minasova, S. G. (2000). Language and intercultural communication. Moscow: Slovo.
  11. Mityagina, V.A., Sidorova, I.G. (2018). Brand Slogan of Region: Valuable Aspect of Place Marketing. SHS Web Conf., 50, 01112.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

29 March 2019

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-057-0

Publisher

Future Academy

Volume

58

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-2787

Subjects

Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society

Cite this article as:

Tameryan*, T., Zheltukhina, M., Sidorova, I., & Shishkina, E. (2019). Stereotype Component In The Structure Of Ethnocultural Archetype (On Internet-Blogs). In & D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 58. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1716-1722). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.02.200