Layers Of Social Mythology In Linguistic Consideration: Linguocultural Type And Archetype

Abstract

In recent decades, attempts to comprehend social mythology have intensified. In modern consideration, social mythology seeks more and more to implement the anthropocentric approach, bringing to the fore the ideas of society and individuals about themselves. It is the point of view of social mythology that makes it possible to reveal the structural elements of the generalized ideas of society about its being. The archetype is the unit of consideration of the mythological picture of the world, and the unit of consideration of the linguistic picture of the world is the concept, one of the varieties of which is the linguocultural type. The work is devoted to the correlation of the concepts of "linguocultural type" and "archetype". The authors find that 1) linguocultural type and archetype can be combined by the concept of "image"; 2) the linguocultural type is formed based on prototypical images, while the archetype is the most generalized expression of images of a certain type; 3) linguocultural type is a marker of the culture of a certain historical period, the archetype exists outside the historical dimension; 4) the linguocultural type is embodied as an element of a static structure - ideas about the structure of society, while the archetype is an element of a dynamic structure (the “life path” of an individual or hero); 5) both phenomena are associated with value orientations and are the results of the formulation of the generalization of the ideas of the individual and society about the structure of the surrounding world.

Keywords: Archetype, concept, linguocultural type, social mythology

Introduction

In recent decades, attempts to comprehend social mythology have intensified. One of the founders of social and mythological research is Gurevich (1983). The subject of his interest is mainly the processes of the formation of political ideologies and their representation in the system of values ​​of society. In our time, the understanding of phenomena through the prism of social mythology is becoming relevant and in demand in various branches of science (including anthropology, psychology, computer science, and, which is especially important for us, in semiotics and philology). In modern consideration, social mythology seeks more and more to implement the anthropocentric approach, bringing to the fore not so much the socio-political constants characteristic of a particular historical period, as the ideas of society and individuals about themselves. It is the point of view of social mythology that makes it possible to reveal the structural elements of the generalized ideas of society about its being. The archetype is the unit of consideration of the mythological picture of the world, while the unit of consideration of the linguistic picture of the world is a concept, one of the varieties of which, in turn, can serve as a linguocultural type.

Problem Statement

Since language, by its nature, inevitably acts as a repeater of the actual mythological system and its genesis, it is important to consider and describe the relationship between the units of the mythological picture of the world (archetypes) and units of the linguistic picture of the world (linguocultural types as a variety of concepts).

It should be noted that attempts to identify phenomena belonging to different disciplinary paradigms lead to blurring of boundaries and non-discrimination of phenomena and their aspects. For example, Fisenko and Lazarev, following Bolshakova directly connects the concepts of the "archetype of the cultural unconscious" and the meta-concept, understanding the latter as the most significant and historically stable concepts, such as "family", "sex", "mother", "father" and so on. Glushkova (2016) singles out the linguocultural type “friend”, which in its content is identical to those phenomena that are described by Fisenko and Lazarev as meta-concepts.

In addition, due to the constant interest of researchers in the study of generalized cultural structures, mentality, national and social mythology, linguistic personalology, the boundaries of concepts included in the terminological apparatus of these spheres often appear in a blurred and distorted form. Sometimes it is possible to state and frankly occasional terminological use.

Research Questions

In the light of what was said earlier, we can state the need to consider the following research questions: 1) correlation of the concepts of "linguocultural type" and "concept" and a description of their role in the framework of understanding social structures in everyday consciousness; 2) identification of interrelationships between phenomena called "linguocultural type" and "concept" in linguistics and the phenomenon that is called "archetype" in the literary research tradition.

Purpose of the Study

Our research aims to establish interdisciplinary correlations between different layers of the worldview in the minds of the average person. Until now, mythopoetics and linguopersonology, developing autonomously, considered similar phenomena in different terminological paradigms, thereby contributing to the multiplication of terminological essences, shifting the focus of consideration from the phenomenon itself to its reflection within a certain theory.

Research Methods

The key method of our research is a semantic description, which consists of clarifying the relationship between the meaning of a linguistic sign and its use. In addition, when analyzing the concept of "archetype", an anthropological method is used that considers not only observations of the specifics of the development of research discourse, but also the social and creative experience of researchers.

Findings

The existing variety of definitions of linguocultural types boils down to the idea that linguocultural types are “recognizable images of representatives of a certain culture, the totality of which constitutes the culture of a particular society” (Karasik, 2009, p. 179). At the same time, the linguocultural type is considered as an abstract mental formation and is a kind of concept. According to Karasik (2009), the linguocultural type “is a generalization and in this regard includes stereotyped ideas about the typified personality with which the speaker consciously or unconsciously associates himself” (p. 183).

It is obvious that the linguocultural type, considered as a generalized image of a representative of culture, has common areas with such a phenomenon as the archetype. Following Stepanov and Proskurin (1993), Stepanov (1997), in the research tradition, it is customary to consider the archetype as a “primary” or “basic” concept of culture (Bolshakova, 2011; Fisenko & Lazarev, 2014). However, in contrast to the archetype “linguocultural type is manifested through communicative behavior, the most important component of which is the verbal number” (Karasik, 2009, p. 189). At the same time, the verbal row as a form of expression of a linguocultural type is largely due to the very existence of the archetype (Tameryan et al., 2019).

Before proceeding to the identification of the correlation of phenomena called in different philological branches "linguocultural type" and "archetype", it is necessary to turn to the genesis of the concept of "archetype" in research practice.

The concept of "archetype" (from the Greek. Archetypos - "prototype", "model") is a concept that has become widespread in research discourse thanks to the works of K.-G. Jung, who worked in the field of studying the psyche from the point of view of the relationship between the conscious and unconscious spheres. Jung (1994) believed that in the process of studying the human psyche it would be incorrect to consider only the human consciousness, considering it the only form of human existence (pp. 206, 341). In his opinion, no less important is the study of the collective unconscious, the filling of which can be described through a set of archetypes - “relics of archaic experience that live in the unconscious of a modern person” (Jung, 1994, p. 175). Archetypes, according to Jung (1994), historically unchanged, he writes: "Our souls, like bodies, are composed of the same elements as the bodies and souls of our ancestors" (p. 233). It is important to note that, contrary to this Jung's thesis, a tradition has developed to use the term "archetype" to describe cultural codes that have developed within specific national and ethnic traditions (Katermina & Buyanova, 2020), and studies of the implementation of one or another archetype in specific cultural products (Dominicci-Buzó, 2020).

In literary works, including mythopoetic analysis of works, the archetype is often identified with the mythological image. We believe that it is advisable to differentiate these terms: a mythological image is an image that goes back to a specific mythological tradition, to specific national mythology, while an archetype is a typical structural element of the mythological system in general, which may have a specific figurative embodiment in a specific mythological tradition.

Any specific mythological tradition is based on a specific concept of the organization of the world, expressed in spatio-temporal images. At the same time, the organization of the worlds in various mythological traditions, at least in the Indo-European cultural area, is similar (vertical division into three parts, the idea of ​​four sides of the world and the cyclical organization of time), that is, it is archetypal, with a high degree of probability it can be raised to one prototype, existence which is due to either the most ancient cultural ties, or inalienable properties of the human psyche, resulting from the biological similarity of all human beings. In addition, leaving aside global generalizations and considering a specific individual as a special case of a human being, we will find that when trying to formulate the concept of the world around him and his being as a process ("life path"), he usually chooses representations as basic components about the organization of time and space, which can be used both as direct elements of description and as a metaphor for a particular life (or, concerning fiction, a plot) stage. A vivid illustration of this use of archepitic images is the psychological work of Campbell (2008), The Thousand Faced Hero, and the work on screenwriting and writing by Vogler (2007), The Way of the Writer, and the earlier work on folklore by Propp (1928) "The Morphology of a Fairy Tale".

See Full Size >

In this dimension, the archetype can be understood as an existential experience, clothed in a specific figurative expression. The archetype, possessing a specific figurative expression, marking the spatial and plot status of an object or character in the general structure of the model of the world (and the “hero's path”), inevitably expresses the state of the subject in the existential dimension (Figure 1). Therefore, the phenomenon of the archetype lies in the area of ​​the sacred, while the linguistic-cultural type, in a sense approaching the steppe type, often manifests the area of ​​the profane.

Let us take the liberty of stating that within the framework of various research paradigms interested in the use of the terms “linguocultural type” and “archetype”, there is an obvious blurriness of their definitions and a deliberate ornateness of defining structures, leading away from the essence of phenomena. Yarmakhova (2005) writes that a linguocultural type is "a generalized idea of ​​a person based on relevant objective socially significant ethnic and socio-specific characteristics of the behavior of such people" (p. 14). At the same time, the criteria for distinguishing between the typical and the individual are not completely clear, and the parameters of relevance, objectivity, and significance require clarification. The presented definition does not give a clear idea of ​​the phenomenon of the linguocultural type, identifying the linguocultural type with the personality type. Dmitrieva characterizes the linguocultural type as a "bunch of value preferences of the linguistic personality", which, in our opinion, contradicts, firstly, the systemic nature of the linguocultural type, and secondly, significantly expands the boundaries of the phenomenon, which, when considered in this way, loses its specificity (Dmitrieva, 2006).

As for the approaches to the definition of the term "archetype", then, having resorted to a semantic analysis of the existing definitions, we can see that it often merges to a large extent with the terms "image" ("prototype", "image scheme") and "motive" in their most generalized interpretation. S.S. Averintsev, retelling the concept of K.-G. Jung, writes that archetypes are "primary schemes of images, reproduced unconsciously and a priori, forming the activity of the imagination, and therefore revealed in myths and beliefs, in works of literature and art, dreams and delusional fantasies" (Averintsev, 2003, pp. 110-111). It is indicative here and the impossibility of exhausting in such a definition all forms and spheres of manifestation of the archetype in the life of a person and society, since they are not limited to the listed groups of cultural formations. Another well-known definition belongs to Yakusheva (2001), she defines archetypes as "the designation of the most general initial motives and images that have universal human significance and are the basis of all forms of culture" (p. 60). The definition of a different genesis is given by Zabiyako (1997, p. 54), according to the researcher, the archetype is “the basic elements of culture that form constant models of spiritual life”.

Let us move on to an attempt to compare the phenomena of linguocultural type and archetype. Dictated by the research desire to implement the anthropocentric approach in modern science, they demonstrate the need for scientists to generalize and structure ideas about human nature. At the same time, considering the linguocultural type and the archetype, it is necessary to emphasize the key difference in the specifics of their existence: if for the functioning of the linguocultural type, a society is needed, which is a conductor and a repeater, then for the functioning of the archetype, the presence of society is optional, since it is realized - with all its universality - as one of the elements of the human mental structure. The realization of a linguocultural type, therefore, depends on the presence in society of a specific common cultural background, while the archetype is realized as a result of the similarity of the autonomous mental processes of individuals. It follows from this that the linguocultural type tends to be static, being a mental formation that has developed and is fixed in the minds of native speakers. The archetype, in turn, is a captured moment of being, embodying one of the transitional states of the individual.

Among the linguocultural types, one can distinguish those that can act as an indicator of a certain time period (for example, such types as "Decembrist", "Padonak"), as well as those that are characterized by the stability of their core (for example, such types as "nomad" or "Journalist"), transforming following the sociocultural process. In contrast, archetypes (for example, "father", "road", "wanderer") do not depend on the historical context, structure, and state of society, existing as if at a different level of mentality, while the linguocultural type serves as an indicator of a certain time period, despite its potential for dynamism and transformation. It is important to note that the formation of a portrait of a linguocultural type is inevitably associated with the axiological characteristics of the culture of the studied society and the researcher himself (Table 1).

Conclusion

Summarizing all the above, we can conclude that such phenomena as "linguocultural type" and "archetype" have several important for their existence and fundamental differences when comparing them, allowing researchers with a certain degree of confidence to label this or that image exactly as type or archetype, while maintaining several rather significant intersections, common and, to some extent, even "nuclear" for the phenomena under consideration. Our research allows us to say that despite the different subject correlation (linguocultural type is an object of study in linguistics, while the archetype is in literary criticism), it is a complex view of a particular image of a culture that makes it possible to form the most complete and objective idea of German

Acknowledgments

The study was carried out with financial support as part of the implementation of the NSTU development program, scientific project pp. 21-12.

References

• Averintsev, S. S. (2003). Archetypes. In: Myths of the peoples of the world. Encyclopedia in 2 volumes (Vol. 1, pp. 110-111). Great Russian Encyclopedia.

• Bolshakova, A. Y. (2011). Archetype - myth - concept (20th – 21st centuries). Archetype theories. Ulyanovsk, UlSTU.

• Campbell, J. (2008). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New World Library.

• Dominicci-Buzó, J. (2020). The “Other” Archetype of the Prostitute and its Identity Diversification in Carajicomedia. Hipogrifo, 8(2), 561-581.

• Dmitrieva, O. A. (2006). Linguocultural type from the standpoint of cultural values. Bulletin of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2, 29–35.

• Fisenko, O. S., & Lazarev, S. V. (2014). Archetype in the structure of the meta-concept. Actual problems of the humanities and natural sciences, 06(65), 46-49.

• Glushkova, N. M. (2016). Comparative-comparative study of linguocultural type as an aspect of linguistic personality (based on the linguocultural type of “friend” in English and Spanish-language works of art): Author's abstract. [Cand. philol. Sciences]. Tyumen, Tyumen State University.

• Gurevich, P. S. (1983). Social mythology. Mysl.

• Jung, K. G. (1994). Memories. Dreams. Reflections. Vintage.

• Karasik, V. I. (2009). Language keys. Gnosis.

• Karasik, V. I. (2010). Linguistic crystallization of meaning. Gnosis.

• Katermina, V. V., & Buyanova, L. Y. (2020). Modern Russian advertising discourse: semiotics, mentality, manipulation. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 438-446.

• Propp, V. Y. (1928). The morphology of the tale. ACADEMIA.

• Stepanov, Y. S. (1997). Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. Research experience.

• Stepanov, Y. S., & Proskurin, S. G. (1993). Constants of World Culture. Alphabets and alphabetic texts during periods of dual faith. Nauka.

• Tameryan, T. Y., Zheltukhina, M. R., Sidorova, I. G., & Shishkina, E. V. (2019). Stereotype component in the structure of ethnocultural archetype (on internet-blogs). European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1716-1722.

• Vogler, C. (2007). The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers. Michael Wiese Productions.

• Yakusheva, G. V. (2001). Archetype. Literary encyclopedia of terms and concepts. NPK Intelvac.

• Yarmakhova, E. A. (2005). Linguocultural type "English eccentric": Abstract. Volgograd.

• Zabiyako, A. P. (1997). Archetype. Culturology. 20th century Vocabulary. SPb, University book.