The article presents the results of linguocognitive reconstruction of lexical-semantic fields "Russian mentality "and" European identity". The linguistic material is taken from the humanitarian scientific texts. The analysis was made on the base of those words and phrases which constitute the nuclear parts only. The research is carried out in the framework of cognitive linguistics and is based on constructing semantic fields in combination with the lexical-semantic and cognitive-discursive analysis. It is proved that the composition of the fields differs in structural-grammatical and content relations. The field “Russian mentality” in the nuclear part consists of key lexemes, their list can be made according to different criteria. So, the axiological approach within the secular projection gives the lexemes truth, goodness, beauty, while the axiological approach in the Christian projection gives the triad faith, hope, love. The linguacultural approach results, first, in dyads: the veracity and the truth, fate and freedom, and second, the triads will, courage, heroism and collectivism, collegiality, devotion. The field “European identity” in the nuclear part consists of attributive or object-attributive word combinations with the noun identity as the main or dependent word. The attributive phrases reflect, firstly, the particular aspects of the identity of the peoples and states that make up the European Union, and secondly, the integral aspect of European identity, which is fixed by generic definitions of European. They are specified in two subgroups: “national dimension”: post-national, transnational, international, supranational; “state aspect”: civil, all-civil, state, constitutional. The integral characteristic of European identity is hybrid and multiple.
Keywords: Russian mentalityEuropean identitylinguistic mental structurescognitive linguisticspolitical linguisticslexical-semantic field
Any supranational state as a civilizational unit is based on those fundamental values that are associated with the concept of “mentality”. The Russian mentality for centuries has provided integrity of the Russian civilization which was put on various state forms: the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation and, therefore, the mental basis of Russian civilization should be properly considered not only Russian, but also the Russian state mentality. European civilization after the fall of the Roman Empire was deprived of an integral supranational idea until the end of the twentieth century, when the European Union was created. The necessary condition for the stability of this new supranational state civilizational union is a common mental basis for its constituent countries and peoples. The desired basis of modern European civilization, which has found a supranational design in the form of the European Union, is usually referred to not as the phrase European mentality, but the phrase European identity, the content of which is currently uncertain. The comparison of methods of constructing the content of the concepts of “Russian / Russian state mentality” and “European identity”, designed to fix the mental foundations of Russian and European civilizations, respectively, is relevant in both theoretical and applied aspects.
Russia and Europe: similarities and differences – this is a very generalized naming of the subject area the research belongs to. In a narrower meaning: mental foundations of the Russian and European civilizations which features can be highlighted on the methodological principle “one in a mirror of another”. The initial linguistic objective to catalogue linguistic units for the Russian mentality and European identity is solved in different ways: for the Russian mentality, these are key words, for the European identity, these are key phrases. The reasons for the structural differences in the material are as follows: 1) in the humanitarian tradition for naming the peculiarities of the Russian mentality as an existing fact a well-established set of individual lexemes is used; 2) the characteristics of European identity that does not exist at the present time, but the Pan-European mentality is only being looked for. And it has not found one-word naming in the humanist tradition. Phrases, not separate lexemes for the language fixation of the desired Pan-European mentality are used because at present certain lexemes are already “occupied” in linguistically clichéd representations of the national characters of different European Nations. Compare, for example, stereotypical formulations dating back to I. Kant: The French are seen through vivacity and levity, the Germans are described through thriftiness and prudence, and so on (Kant, 1964).
The specific difficulty to characterise the Russian mentality in a concise way is that there are a lot of prejudices and myths about Russia, Russians and Russian citizens in general. The detailed analysis of this problem is presented in a series of books of the current Minister of Culture of Russia V. R. Medinsky. There the author matches the subtitles with lexically accurately named key concepts of various negative myths: “About Russian drunkenness, laziness and cruelty”, “about Russian democracy, dirt” and “prison of peoples”, “about Russian theft, soul and long-suffering” (the first book of the series: (Medinskii, 2013). The discussion of such myths is not constructive to solve the problem of the main components of the national character, since it is obvious that a great country cannot hold on “bad things”. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the “reclamation” aspects of the Russian national character, which are reflected in the exact keywords.
European identity is a phenomenon of individual and social consciousness, which in its projection on an individual appears as perceiving oneself as a European, and in its projection on the European community it appears as awareness of oneself as a peculiar supranational civilization unit within the united Europe (EU countries and peoples). Clarifying the essence of European identity is an urgent objective of a variety of the Humanities, such as psychology, sociology, political science, etc. In this research, the authors consider the issue of European identity from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. From this point of view, European identity is a terminological word combination, which meaning and connotations are determined, firstly, by the meanings and connotations of the two words, secondly, by the "added" meanings and connotations appearing in the phrase as “the effect on the whole”, thirdly, by the discursive meanings appearing from the use of this phrase in different situations and contexts. Identity in the Humanities in relation to an individual is understood as the ability to consider themselves belonging to a community or some communities whose members are united by the features that distinguish them from members of other communities. The identity of a community is understood as a set of features that are specific to that community and that collectively distinguish that community from others. Therefore, European identity should be understood as a set of properties specific to the community, which includes people who are aware of themselves as Europeans. The question of the list of such features that can be interpreted as a “European identity” in an integrated way has no unambiguous solution yet.
The problem of Russian national character, Russian mentality and, on the other hand, the issue of the content of the concept of “European identity” has been studied in a wide range of literature. Letting alone its most general characteristics, such as an overview of the history of the issue, see, for example: (Zappettini, 2017; Androsova, 2010). The authors focus on the linguistic components of the problems of Russian mentality and European identity, which in a very brief formulation are as follows: 1) speaking about the Russian mentality, it is searching for lexemes that exist in the Humanities as the names of the main, "nuclear" features of the Russian national character, and what are the meanings and connotations of such lexemes; 2) speaking about the European identity, it is searching for phrases with the reference word identity used in the humanitarian scientific discourse in order to characterize the characteristics of European identity, and what are the meanings and connotations such phrases have.
Purpose of the Study
Purpose of the research: 1) on the basis of the selection of existing in humanitarian discourses linguistic means to describe key features, on the one hand, the Russian mentality, on the other hand, European identity, and to reconstruct the lexical-semantic fields that include the corresponding language units; 2) within each of the two reconstructed in this way lexical-semantic fields it is necessary to find their integrated “semantic cores” that are thought to be a concentrated expression of the essence, on the one hand, Russian (Russian state) mentality, on the other hand, European identity; 3) to compare the data.
The research is carried out in the framework of cognitive linguistics and is based on the constructing semantic fields in combination with lexical-semantic and cognitive-discursive analysis. The word combinations Russian mentality and European identity are interpreted as descriptors of the semantic fields. From the lexicographical point of view, they are understood as heading units of the materials of dictionary type (for example, the noun identity is interpreted as a potential headword of the dictionary article for lexical units compatibility). The research outline: choosing linguistic units with the required semantics from humanitarian scientific texts about Russian mentality and European identity as a source of discursive material. Then constructing linguistically lexical-semantic fields “Russian mentality” and “European identity”, interpretation of the results of the research.
First issue. About the lexemes naming the main features of the Russian national character. The set of such lexemes and phrases, which are found in humanitarian scientific text is prone to regression into “bad infinity”, because as it covers a significant part of the array of names of ethical and psychological qualities of the man and society. Setting aside the problem of the "pejorative" component, we have to note that the “reclamation” part can be identified, for example, with known from humanistic psychology A. Maslow's “growth needs” (“existential values”, “meta needs”). Compare:
In opposition to the popular precedent micro texts allegedly reflecting the essence of Russian problems (such as
Let us characterize other “lexical keys” to the peculiarities of the Russian national character, which are considered in the Orthodox axiology as a doctrine of the key values of the Christian world outlook (the philological projection of the Orthodox axiology is reflected in our work: (Volkov & Volkova, 2017).
Collectivism, collegiality, “totalitarianism”,
A special place in the line of different versions of the description of the fundamental features of the Russian mentality is occupied by the report of count S.S. Uvarov “on some general principles that can serve as a guide in the management of the Ministry of national education” that was submitted by him to Emperor Nicholay I on November 19, 1833. Its pathos is in the search of the foundations to allow Russia to stand “in the midst of the general decline of religious and civil institutions in Europe” (Uvarov, 2014). Uvarov's triad has been tried to make fun of for the alleged “conservatism”, “sluggishness” without understanding that
Orthodoxy is the civilizational foundation of the Russian mentality. According to the efficient definition, it is Orthodoxy that “gives inner certainty to the mentality of the mass consciousness of the Russian people and determines the spiritual potential of the Russian nation for a millennium” (Orekhovskaya, 2009). Here it is the civilizational function of any world religion. It gives “internal certainty” to all subsequent components of cultural and state construction. From this point of view, the complexity of the search of the definitions of modern “European identity” is in the uncertainty of the religious foundation of European civilization as it has developed by XX–XXI centuries. Uvarov's formula of the Russian mentality includes three basic components both in its initial version and in subsequent modifications within the time frame: 1) spiritual and religious, 2) state, 3) national. These components are considered to be universal. The research of the discursive approaches to the European mentality undertaken by the authors reveals a coincidence only in two parameters – “statehood” and “nationality”. The parameter “religiosity” as well as its modernized definition “spiritual and moral foundations of society” is vague.
Macro components of the integrating "new identity»: 1. Since the European Union is a civilizational entity uniting a number of different states and peoples connected with Europe, the integrating element is the supranational and trans nationalized identity / citizenship (formal vs. real). 2. Because the identity has the ontological status and has the beingness only in the case when it represents a certain feature of the consciousness of the individual, then its desired psychological result is the consciousness of oneself as an integral member of the new (supranational, trans nationalized) community. 3. The basic values that make up the constitutional basis of the European Union as a new supranational entity.
“New identity” as the top part of the “pyramid of identities”, as the integrating basis of European multi-identity requires to solve the problem of hierarchization of the whole system of identities, to find an appropriate Pan-European identity policy as a practical implementation of the idea of the supranational organization of society. The desired system of identities and the identity policy it causes are displayed by the word combinations hybrid / multiple identity. Its correlation with the previous / current state of affairs is reflected through the word combinations post-national / transnational order in the humanitarian discourse. From the linguistic point of view, the definitions of post-national / transnational are difficult to recognize as successful ones, as they refer to the concept of levelling, “destruction” of the national things. It cannot be considered to be true modern conditions.
The question of the content of the concepts of "Russian mentality" and "European identity" in the modern sense, actually, appears as the question about "national idea" – "idea of state" of Russia and Europe. In a more modern alternative recognition, it is a question of the key objectives of civilization and state building. It is reflected in the mental features, on the one hand, of the Russian, on the other hand, of the European peoples.
The "Russian idea" has evolved over the centuries, but its basis has always been religiosity (faith) and patriotism in a specific supranational interpretation of the "preservation of the spiritual foundations of national and state life". The evolution of these foundations was clearly described by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia in January 2015 in his first speech in the lower house of the Russian parliament in the modern Russian history. According to him, each of the most important stages of national history should be correlated with one of the basic values: Ancient Russia is reflected by the sanctity and height of the human spirit and can be identified in one word faith. The subsequent Russian Empire is correlated with Great power statehood", while the Soviet era is characterised by justice and solidarity and the modern era correlates with freedom and dignity. “A little earlier, at the 15th Council”, “explained the Patriarch”, we formulated an even broader list of values that underlie the national identity. In addition to these values, there are others: peace, unity, morality, honesty, patriotism, mercy, family, culture, national traditions, human welfare, diligence, self-restraint, sacrifice (Patriarch, 2015). It seems that these formulations sanctified by the high authority should be considered as the basis for the interpretation of the main content of the Russian mentality.
The “European idea” in the modern integrated understanding is the political and economic, supranational and supranational unity. The problem is that unity as such has no independent ontological value. The value of unity is that it can be a means to realize any deeper values. It can be a means only, but not a target. The necessary condition for the existence of the new European (integral) identity is the overcoming of private identities on the basis of their integration into a new system whole. The required integrative basis of the new, common European identity is constructed as a supranational and trans nationalized identity. Therefore, the further language ways to characterize this desired identity are nationalism, transnationalism and globalism. These alternatives, from a linguistic point of view, cannot be considered to be efficient. Internationalism as an ideological and political phenomenon in accordance with the secondary meaning of the prefix inter- ‘inside / inside’, implies the involvement of nations in a special inter-space between them, where (inside of which) the identity of each nation is neutralized. Semantically, the key prefix in the adjective transnational TRANS with the dominant seme “cross/cross” (movement through the external borders of something). The main meaning of the Latin etymon trans ‘through, across ' is associated with external borders. In the adjective transnational the meaning “through, across” and derivative meaning “further” develop into “non” (“transnational = “non-national”). Internationalism in the contemporary transnationalism and globalism is more radical and is based on the idea of compulsory uniformity and control from a single centre. The term continues to transform further in the no-nonsense issue with the specific subjects of management that make all participants of the process of globalization to obey their decisions absolutely. Thus, it is more appropriate to use the phrases hybrid / multiple identity. The graphic representation of such an identity is a pyramid, the lower part of which consists of a number of private identities and its top is the European supranational and trans nationalized civil identity as an integrating whole.
- Androsova, D. N. (2010). European identity and European integration (review). Actual problems of Europe, 2, 172-188.
- Arutyunova, N. D. (1999). Language and the world of man. Moscow, Languages of Russian culture.
- Ilyin, I. (2002). Axioms of religious experience. Moscow: ACT.
- Kant, I. (1964). Works in six volumes, 2. Moscow: Thought.
- Likhachev, D. S. (2014). Notes on the Russian language. Moscow: Kolibri-Azbuka-Attikus.
- Lossky, N. Oh. (1991). The conditions of the absolute good. Moscow: Politizdat.
- Maslow, A. (2011). New frontiers of human nature. Moscow: Sense-Alpina non-fiction.
- Medinsky, V. R. (2013). About Russian drunkenness, laziness and cruelty. Moscow: OLMA Media Group.
- Orekhovskaya, N. Ah. (2009). The role of Orthodoxy in the formation of mass consciousness of the Russian people. Vestnik MSOU. Series: Philosophical Sciences, 3, 117-122.
- Patriarch, K. (2015). Duma of The Patriarch. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia addressed the State Duma for the first time. Retrieved from: http://www.rg.ru/2015/01/23/patriarkh.html.
- Sklyarevskaya, G. N. (2008). Dictionary of Orthodox Church culture. Moscow: Astrel–AST.
- Uvarov, S. S. (2014). The foundations of the state. Moscow: Institute of Russian civilization.
- Vlasov, V. I. (2012). On the question of the mission of the Russians, their national traits and properties, features of character. Questions of national and Federal relations, 1, 81-95.
- Volkov, V. V., Volkova, N. In. (2017). “Renaissance of Russian literature”: national mentality and literature of spiritual realism in teaching Russian literature. Bulletin of Buryat State University. Series: Philology, 3, 147-157.
- Volkov, V. V., Gladilina, I. V. (2014). Literary text in teaching Russian as a foreign language. Tver: Tver state UN-T.
- Zappettini, F. (2017). Transnationalism as an Index to Construct European Identities: An Analysis of’ Transeuropean ' Discourses. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 21 (2), 260-281.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
29 March 2019
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Volkov, V., Volkova, N., & Gladilina, I. (2019). Russian Mentality And European Identity. The Linguistic Aspect Of The Problem. 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. 2068-2077). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.02.240