Methods of studying the linguistic personality in modern linguistics. Language personality of the blogger Directions in the description of the language personality

Short description

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

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



The study of a linguistic personality representing a social group ……………………………………………… 10
The study of the 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 the linguistic personality ………………. ………… 8

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

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

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

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

Introduction

In the second 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 particular ethnic group, language and worldview, linguistic personality, etc. Being one of the active forms knowledge of reality, language gives us a real image of the world, which man has been striving to grasp for many centuries. Based on this, the problem arose of studying the linguistic personality, which is the core of the worldview.

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 convincingly about language as a way of verbalizing human communication in the process of joint activities of people. The analysis of the linguistic personality inevitably leads the study 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 the linguistic personality.

For a long time in culturology, there has been a tendency towards the deepest study of man: his nature, appearance, inner world, mentality, etc. One of the topical areas of research is the comprehension 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 in science of a new object of study - the linguistic personality. From the standpoint of the anthropocentric paradigm, a person learns the world through awareness of himself, his theoretical and objective activity in it, defining the hierarchy of values ​​that manifests itself in his speech, and the center of attention is the native speaker - the linguistic personality.
To date, various approaches to the study of linguistic personality are known: polylectal (multihuman) and idiolect (private verbal) personality (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"

At the center of modern anthropocentric linguistics is the concept of "linguistic personality", that is, a person in his ability to perform speech acts. It was first introduced into science by V.V. Vinogradov. The scientist approached the concept of linguistic personality by studying the language of fiction. The logic of the development of the concepts "image of the author" and "artistic image", 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. Goddess, he created a model of linguistic personality, in which a person was viewed from the point of view of his "readiness to perform speech acts, 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) the degree of structural and linguistic complexity; b) the depth and accuracy of the 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-combatant, invariant), reflecting the degree of proficiency in ordinary language. The second level is cognitive, where 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 presupposes a reflection of the linguistic model of the world of the individual, its thesaurus, and culture. And the third - the highest level - is pragmatic. It includes identifying and characterizing the motives and goals that drive the development of a linguistic personality. Consequently, coding and decoding of information occurs during the interaction of three levels of the “communicative space of a person” - 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-establishing, informational and influencing, as well as with three sides of the communication process - communicative, interactive and perceptual.

The level model reflects a generalized personality type. There can be many specific linguistic personalities, they differ in the variations in the significance of each level in the composition of the personality. Thus, the linguistic personality is a multi-layered and multicomponent 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 the speech personality that both the national-cultural specificity of the linguistic personality and the national-cultural specificity of the communication itself are manifested.

The following components are included in the content of a linguistic personality:
1) the value, ideological, component of the content of education, that is, the system of values, or life meanings. Language provides an initial and deep view of the world, forms that linguistic image of the world and a hierarchy of spiritual ideas that underlie the formation of a national character and are implemented in the process of linguistic dialogue;

2) a culturological component, that is, the level of cultural development as effective means increasing interest in the language. Involving 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 of adequate use and effective influence on the communication partner;
3) a personal component, that is, an 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 the socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person that make up his qualitative determination. 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, ie. the complex of psychophysical properties of an individual, which allows him to produce and perceive speech works, is essentially a speech personality. A "linguistic personality" is also understood as a set of features of the verbal behavior of a person who uses language as a means of communication - a communicative personality. And, finally, a "linguistic personality" can be understood as a basic national-cultural prototype of a native speaker of a certain language, fixed mainly in the lexical system, a kind of "semantic composite", compiled on the basis of ideological attitudes, value priorities and behavioral reactions reflected in the dictionary - a vocabulary personality , ethnosemantic ".

1. Directions in the description of a linguistic personality

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 the speech personality that the national and cultural specificity of communication itself is revealed.

a) the value, worldview, component of the content of education, that is, the system of values, or life meanings. Language provides an initial and deep view of the world, forms that linguistic image of the world and a hierarchy of spiritual ideas that underlie the formation of a national character and are implemented in the process of linguistic dialogue;

b) a culturological component, that is, the level of mastering culture as an effective means of increasing interest in the language. Involvement of the facts of the culture of the target language, associated with the rules of speech and non-speech behavior, contributes to the formation of skills of adequate use and effective impact on the communication partner;

c) a personal component, that is, that individual, deep, that is in every person. The parameters of the 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 typical enough for a representative of a given linguistic community, then the vocabulary 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. with the fulfillment of a dozen social roles, must be mastered 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 the linguistic personality turns out to be a kind of realization of the cultural and historical knowledge of the whole society;

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

1. Study of an individual linguistic personality.

In the concept of a linguistic personality, the connection of the language with the individual consciousness of the personality, 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 ...", because, 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,” since 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 "one can speak of a person only as a linguistic person, as embodied in a language." A linguistic personality in linguistics is understood as "a set of abilities and characteristics of a person that determine the creation and perception of speech works, linguistic competence, characterized by the depth and accuracy of reflection of reality, the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, while the intellectual characteristics of the linguistic personality are highlighted." According to Yu.N. Karaulova, "a linguistic personality is that cross-cutting idea" that "permeates all aspects of language learning and at the same time destroys the boundaries between disciplines that study a person outside his language." A linguistic personality is a kind of a full-fledged representation of a personality, containing both mental, social, and 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 the individual user of the language, but goes to the level of the national linguistic type. A linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it has an individual aspect. The individual in the linguistic personality is formed through the internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings; but it should not be forgotten that the linguistic personality influences 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 predecessors. The language of a particular person consists to a greater extent of a common language and to a lesser extent of individual linguistic characteristics.

1. The study of the linguistic personality in the national aspect

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

Mikhalevich Oksana Vladimirovna 2011

O. V. Mikhalevich

THE PROBLEM OF STUDYING A LANGUAGE PERSONALITY IN LINGUISTICS: A HISTORICAL ASPECT

The article is devoted to the history of the formation of the problem of the linguistic personality in foreign and domestic linguistics. The main approaches to the description of the linguistic personality in Russian dialectology are also considered.

Key words: dialect, idiolect, linguistics, linguistic picture of the world, linguistic personality

O. V. Mikhalevich

LINGUISTIC RESEARCH OF LINGUISTIC PERSONALITY: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The article overviews the perspective of linguistic personality problem formation in foreign and native linguistics. It also accounts the basic approaches to the description of linguistic personality in Russian dialectology.

Key words: dialect, idiolect, linguistic world image, linguistics, linguistic personality

Interest in language learning has grown significantly. individual... The focus of the researchers turned out to be a man with his own linguistic, mental, behavioral characteristics, his own picture of the world, including the individual and the national. The linguistic personality (hereinafter - YL), or a person who exists in the process of communication and reflects in speech behavior both his linguistic experience and the general experience of all mankind, has become the object of research in various fields, therefore we can talk about the anthropocentricity of modern science. In modern linguistics, the problem of YL is increasingly considered in related sciences as an object of interdisciplinary research and in the aspect of the formation of a national language, in which the subjective is transformed into the objective. "The linguistic personality is that cross-cutting idea, which, as the experience of its analysis and description shows, permeates all aspects of language learning and at the same time destroys the boundaries between the disciplines that study the language, since you cannot study a person outside his language."

The ratio of the individual and the general, the collective in the linguistic personality is one of the objects of research in modern linguistics... Linguists propose to consider the opposition of the individual and the universal as a dialectical unity: “With the help of language, a person expresses his

inner world, making it an interpersonal phenomenon. Language is an important means of introducing the individual to social experience. " This is one of the reasons why the problem of linguistic personality is one of the urgent problems of modern anthropocentric linguistics.

Any text (orally or in writing) is created by a person and for a person, "behind any text there is a linguistic person who owns the language system." Therefore, an appeal to the YL is necessary for understanding the text (and therefore the system of language, especially the dialect one) and for studying the YL itself, its picture of the world, which is reflected in speech, in how, with the help of the means of the language system, a person creates a text, expresses intentions, an emotive attitude to a given moment of reality.

The definitions of YL were implicitly indicated in the works of V. Humboldt, K. Vossler, MM Bakhtin. There are three authors who were actively involved in the development of the YL problem. These are, first of all, V.V. Vinogradov, who introduced the term YAL into scientific use; GI Bogin, who developed the YL model in the linguodidactic aspect and who understood YL from the point of view of “his readiness to perform speech acts, create and receive works of speech”; as well as Yu.N. Karaulov, who proposed his own model of YaL, taking into account the philosophical and psychological aspects of YaL, as well as

divided the levels of YL in terms of semantics and pragmatics in the language.

At present, the focus on YL served as the basis for the formation of a new direction in linguistics - linguistic personology. Within the framework of this direction, the study of a collective YaL or an idioletic YaL is underway, attempts are made to create a portrait of a separate YaL.

E. Benveniste believed that language is contained in the very nature of man: “In the world there is only a man with a language, speaking with another person, and the language, therefore, necessarily belongs to the very definition of man ... It is in language and thanks to language that a person is constructed as subject, because only language gives reality, its reality, which is the property of being. " ...

The definition of YL in linguistics has been historically variable. As noted by Yu. N. Karaulov, for a long period in linguistics, a generalizing approach prevailed, which singled out a person as a species, a speaking being. But the question of the relationship between language and personality became fundamental in connection with the problems of determining the social nature of language, the relationship between language and speech.

An appeal to the problem of the connection between language and a person can be seen at the earliest stages of the development of linguistics. V.M. Alpatov notes that the approach to language through a person and his language, when the researcher could proceed not only from the corpus of texts, but even implicitly or explicitly from his own linguistic instinct as a native speaker, existed in all linguistic traditions. This approach can be called anthropocentric, since the researcher relies on human-made speech, and not so much on the text.

Attention to a person as a user of the language is characteristic of the Arab tradition, where it was believed that there is a divine language in which the Koran is written, and a person cannot change or improve it, but can partially or completely forget or spoil it.

Statements on the language of the individual can also be found among ancient thinkers. This is both Plato's dictum "The character of a person is known in speech", and the statement of Mark Fa-biy Quintillian "What a person is, such is his manner of expressing himself."

V. Humboldt, in the linguo-philosophical concept of the spirit of the people, noted the influence of language on a person and his culture, as well as on the culture of the whole people, since language for him is a collective phenomenon. A person cannot develop or think without language: “The creation of a language is conditioned by the inner need of a person. Language is not just an external means of communication between people, but is embedded in the very nature of man and is necessary for the development of spiritual forces and the formation of a worldview ... ”. One of Humboldt's antinomies contrasts the individual and the collective in language, which later became one of the leading topics for research in linguistics. The idea of ​​a "national spirit" for the scientist was directly related to the individual. He notes that “speech activity, even in its simplest forms, is a combination of individual perceptions with the general nature of man. The language unites the individual with the universal in such a miraculous way that it is equally correct to say that the entire human race speaks one language, and each person has his own language. " The scientist connects the development of the language with the creative work of each individual in the process of communication, which is reflected in the language, which keeps the traces of previous generations and their linguistic experience.

Continuation of Humboldt's ideas at the end

XIX - early XX centuries. we see in the school of aesthetic idealism, headed by K. Vossler. Representatives of this school studied the individual language and style of writers. Vossler believed that it was necessary to study living speech, but only from the point of view of its structure, which did not allow considering the specifics of a person's language. At the same time, he spoke about the importance of the language of the individual for the development of a universal language, its influence on the language of other people, about the fact that the language of the individual is able to create norms that can be supported or not by others. The reason for language development is "the human spirit with its inexhaustible individual intuition." This is how the theory of individual styles developed, focused on the study of the stylistics of individual creative personalities, which, according to the representatives of this school, most of all influenced the language of the entire people. Vossler describes the function of communication as the main function of language, highlighting the YL genius who expresses

It reduces the national character of the language, reducing linguistics proper to the study of the idio-styles of writers. The creative, aesthetic nature of speech creation becomes important, therefore, the individual style is considered from the point of view of aesthetic criteria.

Russian philologist A.A. Potebnya back in late XIX v. wrote that "the act of consciousness of the subject acts as a derivative of the linguistic structure, which is objective and does not depend on individual personality traits and the understanding of which is due to belonging to the same people."

Since the 70s. XIX century. a new direction in linguistics is being created - young grammatism, whose representatives have abandoned the generalization that was present in the study of the language of the previous directions. They began to look at language from an interdisciplinary perspective, as well as to apply the method of experiment in their research, because it was "necessary to get out into the fresh air of modernity." The authors of the Manifesto of Young Grammatism called for the psychophysical study of man and his language. At the same time, the refusal to study the collective, "spirit of the people" led some researchers to study only the language of the individual, without generalizations about the language of the people. Only the language of the individual was recognized as a reality, moreover, as a psychic reality, depending on a changeable mental activity the individual.

Later, this theory developed within the framework of another school - the Italian school of neolinguistics, created by Professor M. Bartoli. Neolinguists tried to combine historical linguistics, linguistic geography with the ideas of Humboldt. Based on the ideas of young grammarians, scientists considered the language of the individual to be the only reality, “any linguistic change is of individual origin; in its beginning it is the free creativity of man, which is imitated and assimilated by others ... ". However, attempts at individual consideration of linguistic phenomena and the exclusion of general patterns inherent in the research of young grammarians led to the description of the history of individual words.

The positions of the young grammarians were also shared by the Russian scientist I.A.Baudouin de Courtenay, who considered national languages ​​as

an abstraction accessible only through the study of individual languages ​​and does not exist in reality. He wrote: “Among the mental wholes, usually considered from a false point of view, that is, outside the human psyche, there is also language. Meanwhile, the real reason for the connection between the phenomena of language, like all other complexes of representations of the social and psychological world, should be sought, on the one hand, in the individual mental centers of individuals as members of a linguistic society in a known way, on the other hand, in the social and psychological communication of members language society ".

The distinction between the general and the individual is made with the greatest accuracy by F. de Saussure in connection with the allocation of three entities opposed to each other: language - speech - speech activity. Language and speech are opposed as general and particular: language is social, belongs to the whole society of speakers, and speech is individual; language does not depend on external, physical characteristics (acoustic properties, for example), and speech is used in communication, so such characteristics are necessary. The main idea of ​​F. de Saussure: “Language is not the activity of the speaker. Language is a finished product passively registered by the speaker. " Saussure's concept does not contain a detailed description of the essence of an individual's speech; more detailed studies were carried out by his followers.

F. de Saussure's ideas on the distinction between language and speech were developed by A. Gardiner, supplementing them with his reflections in the book "Theory of speech and language". He believed that it is impossible to talk about language and speech as a private and individual, since these concepts coexist in the language, therefore, the English language of Shakespeare, Oxford, America, or the English language itself can be distinguished. Gardiner shares Saussure's understanding of language as an objective reality stored in the brain of people. He points to the creative nature of speech, which is unique; every time any text is created anew by the speaker. The French linguist A. Sechet also spoke about the creative nature of speech, about the emergence of innovations in the speech of an individual and their subsequent consolidation in the language of the collective.

At the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. within the framework of descriptivism in America, a new

a board associated with combining the knowledge of several disciplines about a person: anthropology, linguistics, folklore, archeology and ethnography - anthropological linguistics. With this approach, it was necessary to find new ways of learning the language, different from traditional linguistics. At the same time, the personality of a human informant, a bearer of a certain language or dialect, acquires special significance in research. At the same time, it was impossible to get used to the language practice of the researcher himself, so work with the informant took center stage.

The convergence of linguistics with anthropology is observed in the works of E. Sapir in the 1920s and 1930s.

XX century Particularly interesting is his article "Speech as a Personality Trait" (1927), which examines possible approaches to the analysis of speech from the point of view of the study of personality: 1) the study of the differences between the individual and society; 2) study of different levels of speech.

Another way of studying human speech in the history of linguistics was the approach associated with the application of the behaviorist theory of language. L. Bloomfield reduces linguistics to the psychology of language, which studies the behavior of speakers and listeners, as well as speech disorders in an individual.

Neolinguistics that arose in the 1920s. XX century. in Italy, she also brought YL to the fore, believing that language is not a collective phenomenon, but an individual, in essence, the spiritual activity of an individual.

The problem of the individual is considered by A. M. Peshkovsky in the article "Objective and Normative Point of View on Language" (1925), which examines the influence of individuals on the creation of the language of the people.

VV Vinogradov made an important contribution to the development of the problem of the relationship between human personality and language. In his publication On Fictional Prose (1930), he first used the term “linguistic personality”. In the works of V.V. Vinogradov, the need to study the individual in speech, individual styles within the framework of fiction... The scientist emphasized the connection between "object-structural properties and qualities" with "the subjective qualities of the writer's appearance and his artistic manner." He also spoke about the influence of the individual on the formation and development of the national language.

In the middle of the twentieth century. YaL was understood in a generalized way and, as a rule, was not an independent object of description, but was mentioned in connection with the study of other phenomena of the language. Initially, the problem of studying YL was important for researchers artistic text in connection with the opposition of the author-narrator and the author-creator of the work, the author-narrator and the image of the character. For example, in the work of RA Budagov "Literary languages ​​and language styles" (1967), it is argued that the study of the literary language and style should be considered as the ratio of the individual and the general. In the composition of the general, the individual is also present, and the individual is possible only against the background of the general, “the individual is most often refracted through the prism of the category of the general itself: almost every outstanding writer of modern times“ individually handles all the resources of the language, which are in themselves the common property people speaking the same language. " According to Yu. N. Karaulov, "it is important that the author, as a linguistic individuality, differs from the linguistic individuality of the same person outside of artistic creation."

Thus, until the end of the 70s. XX century the attention of researchers was focused on the philosophical aspects of the YL problem, in particular, on the dialectical relationship between the general and the particular in connection with YL.

V last third XX century spheres that integrate several areas of study with a common object - a person's personality - are developing intensively. These are such sciences as sociolinguistics (studying social, territorial, professional, gender, age characteristics of the speaker), psycholinguistics (studying the process of generating speech and its perception), pragmatics (studying questions of the addressee and addressee of speech, questions of discourse), linguodidactics (studying the nature of mastering human speech), text linguistics (studying the organization of the text and the nature of the use of linguistic units in it). A new object of study begins to form - the speaking person. Interest in man was reflected in a large number of magazines and collections that were published at the end of the 20th century: the magazine "Man" (published since 1990), collections "Man and Culture" (1990), "On the Human Language" (1991). Many books are published on this

problem: "Language, Discourse and Personality" (1990), "Linguistic Personality: Problems of Choice and Interpretation of a Sign in a Text" (1994), "Linguistic Personality: Problems of Meaning and Sense" (1994), "Linguistic Personality and Semantics" (1994) ), “Society, Language, Personality” (1996), “Linguistic Personality: Cultural Concepts” (1996), “Anthropocentric Approach to Language” (1998), “Human Language and World” (1998), “Language. System. Personality "(1999)," Logical analysis of language. The image of a person in culture and language "(1999) and others. Yu. N. Karaulov notes that" linguistics unnoticed for itself entered a new phase of its development - a strip of overwhelming interest in YL. "

Since the end of the twentieth century. defined in general outline the main theoretical concepts of modern anthropolinguistics - "linguistic personality", "idiolect"; a typology of YL is being developed, different models YaL (works by G.I.Bogin, Yu.N. Karaulov, V.P. Ne-roznak, S.G. Vorkachev, etc.). It can be argued that during this period, the newest theoretical and methodological basis for the study of YL was actively formed, author's methods for describing YL were developed, and complex methods of collecting linguistic material were tested.

Anthropocentric linguistics approaches the study of YL from different angles: from the point of view of the lexico-stylistic system of YL, an emotive picture of the world. In a number of works, YaL becomes the object of a comprehensive study. It is the study of YL in the aggregate of its features that helps to understand the structure of YL, its picture of the world, and also to highlight the national features that are presented in the speech of each person.

It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of studies of the twentieth century. was dedicated to the idiolects of creative and widely known people in society: poets (L.A. Zubova about M. Tsvetaeva), writers (V.V. Ledeneva about N.S. Leskov), prominent scientists (I.A. V. Vinogradov) and culture (G. N. Bespamyatnova). A number of studies describe YL in general (A.A.Zalevskaya, S.V. Lebedeva, G.V. Eiger, I.A.Rappoport) or YL of a native speaker of the national language and culture (N.L. . Boguslavsky, N. V. Ufimtseva and others). An ordinary native speaker is studied by linguists less, despite the fact that it is the speech of a particular subject that represents the YL phenomenon most fully (O.B.Sirotinina, B. Yu. Nor-

man, T.V.Shmeleva, etc.). A small part of linguists turn to the study of the YL of a certain sociolinguistic subtype: YL of a child, adolescent, modern Russian intellectual, a villager (A.V. Zakharova, L.P. Krysin, R.F. Paufoshima, G.N. A. Ivushkina, V. P. Timofeev, etc.), less often - the psychological subtype (A. A. Pushkin, M. V. Lyapon).

With the approval of the anthropocentric paradigm in modern linguistics and in the field of dialectology, studies appeared that took into account the cultural, historical and national specifics of the Russian linguistic personality (R.F.Paufoshima, V.P. Timofeev, E.A. Nefedova, V.D. V. Ivantsova and others). EA Nefedova notes that "the need to study the dynamics of modern dialects, to identify sources, resources and means of variation brings to the fore the figure of a specific dialect carrier - a linguistic personality". Communicative dialectology often uses the technique of nondifferential description of the language of dialect carriers, which makes it possible to most fully reflect the originality of an individual YL. Studies of recent decades are associated with the study of speech portraits of dialect carriers, idiolexicon, grammatical classes of dialect YL, syntactic features of idiolect, genre specificity of dialect speech, linguocreative activity and conceptual sphere of the bearer of the dialect, as well as metalinguistic consciousness of dialect YL (T.S. A. Demeshkina, E. V. Ivantsova, L. N. Gyngazova, O. A. Kazakova, E. A. Didenko, S. V. Guziy, E. A. Krapivets, I. I. Vyat-kina, I. I. Rusinova and others).

E. V. Ivantsova is convinced that new stage development of the problem "language and personality" should be associated with:

a) with the study, along with the collective, real YL, including those living today;

b) the study of different types of YL, primarily ordinary native speakers;

c) reliance on an extensive base of primary sources - texts obtained as a result of long-term observation of the speech of real informants (and not the discourse of the heroes of works of art as a model of YL), with the involvement of special methods of collecting material;

d) a systematic approach to the analysis of the data obtained (a non-differential principle in the collection and description of linguistic facts; sequential study of all tiers of the language of the individual; a comprehensive multi-aspect study of each of these tiers, as well as an analysis of the implementation of YL in an integral text; a combination of objective observation over the speech of the informant with the address to the manifestations of his metalanguage consciousness).

Now there are several generalizing works devoted to dialect YL: "Linguistic personality and idiolect" (V.D.Lyutikova, 2000), "The phenomenon of dialectal linguistic personality" (E.V. Ivantsova, 2002), etc. YL is considered as a representative dialect and at the same time as an individual, creatively transforming the dialect. However, according to E. V. Ivantsova, "almost all attempts to create speech portraits are not systemic, affecting only individual linguistic tiers." VP Timofeev at one time explained the difficulties in studying YaL by the following reasons: difficulties in choosing the YaL itself (who should have been the object of research); constant change of YL; the impossibility of organizing a continuous observation of the YL, since in addition to public speech situations there are purely personal ones, up to the conversation "to oneself".

The study of the dialect YL is directly related to the reconstruction of the dialect picture of the world, which is part of the all-Russian picture of the world. The dialect reflects the folk picture of the world, it is more natural, open in comparison with the literary, reflects the peculiarities of the vision of the dialect YL of the world, nature, reproducing with the help of linguistic means the peculiarities of the life of people united by a common territory and language. As E. A. Nefedova notes, "one of the tasks facing researchers of this direction is the detection and selection of those parts of the dialectal language macrosystem, in which differences in the worldview of dialect speakers are manifested."

The study and comparison of specific idiolects, individual lexical-semantic groups and fields makes it possible to describe the conceptual sphere of the dialect. Back in the 19th century. German dialectologists found that the dialect carrier represents its own dialect

in the area that is most relevant and in demand for him, it means that the language of each locality is heterogeneous, since it includes a set of individual pictures of the world that have both common and distinctive features. VD Lyutikova says that "in the dialect as the initial form of the existence of a language, such a type of linguistic personality is created, which is the fundamental principle of the national Russian linguistic personality, without the study of which it is impossible to cover the issue of the Russian mentality, which has general scientific significance."

The main sources for the study of dialect YL in any aspect are the texts written by the informant, as well as the records of researchers. Dialectologists use records oral speech as it helps to study YL most fully. The more detailed information about YL is presented, the more complete will be the speech portrait of the informant, his idiolect. When describing the idiolect, the following components are distinguished:

Phonetic, grammatical, derivational, lexical dialectisms, ethnographicisms;

Syntagmatic resources, idiomatic features of speech;

Dialect emotive resources;

Motivational basis of the YL vocabulary.

The idiolect, which is realized mainly in the oral form, contains a large number of variant forms, new words, born by the dialect carrier in the process of communication. Most of these formations, according to E.A. Nefedova, can be attributed to the emotional-evaluative sphere, in which the word-creation of YL is most fully manifested. "The penchant for word creation is one of the most powerful ways of manifesting the individuality of a linguistic personality and its expressive potential." Therefore, the language of the dialect carrier begins to be perceived by researchers as a source of new formations in the dialect, requiring special attention and study.

The richest language material recorded from dialect YL is reflected in YL dialect dictionaries. Among such dictionaries, one can name the "Dialectical Dictionary of Personality" by V.P. Timofeev - the first dictionary of this type, reflecting the speech of E.M. Timofeeva from the Kurgan region,

Born in 1897; VD Lyutikova's Dictionary of a Dialectal Personality, which recreates the idiolect of VM Petukhova from the Kurgan region, born in 1920; “The Dialect Dictionary of One Family” by E. Ye. Koroleva captures the dialect speech of a group of speakers of the same dialect, united by family ties; "Expressive Dictionary of a Dialectal Personality" by EA Nefedova contains expressive units in the speech of AI Ponomareva, born in 1928; "Idiolect dictionary of comparisons of the Siberian old-timer" E. V. Ivantsova and "Complete dictionary of dialect language personality" edited by E. V. Ivantsova, considering the idiolect V. P. Vershinina, born in 1909, which is currently the most extensive in the field the study of dialect YL, including dialectal, vernacular and general Russian vocabulary.

Thus, the history of the study of YL in linguistics reveals a long history of study. In European linguistics, the problem of YL arose in connection with the posing of such global questions as social

the nature of language, the relationship between language and speech, the language of the individual and the collective (V. Humboldt, F. de Saussure, E. Sapir). An important contribution to its development was made by prominent Russian linguists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A. M. Peshkovsky, V. V. Vinogradov, R. A. Budagov and others. XX century in integration with sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguodidactics, text linguistics, pragmatics, and at the same time, in isolation from related disciplines, linguistic personology is formed with a new object of study (YL).

The study of a separate dialect YL is necessary to identify the processes common to the entire dialect, and features specific to the speech of a particular dialect carrier. The appeal to the dialect YL contributes to the multidimensional study of the dialect system, consideration of the extent to which the features of the dialect and the common language are manifested in the language of a particular YL, how a person's personality affects the dialect system, how the folk picture of the world is revealed in the idiolect.

B and b l o g af ic e s c s to

1. Alpatov VM History of linguistic teachings: textbook. allowance. - M .: Yaz. Russian culture, 1999.

2. Benveniste E. General linguistics. - M .: Progress, 1974.

3. Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. Fav. works on general linguistics. T. 1. - M .: AN SSSR, 1963.

4. Budagov RA Literary languages ​​and language styles. - M .: Higher. shk., 1967.

6. Grishaeva L. I. Picture of the world as a problem humanities// Picture of the world and ways of its representation in language. - Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2003.

7. Ivantsova EV The idiolect dictionary of comparisons of the Siberian old-timer. - Tomsk: Tomsk state. un-t, 2005.

8. Ivantsova EV Phenomenon of dialect language personality. - Tomsk: Tomsk state. un-t, 2002.

9. Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and language personality. - M .: UrSS, 2002.

10. Koroleva EE A dialect dictionary of one family (Pytalovsky district of the Pskov region). - M .: Daugavpils Saule, 1999.

11. Lyutikova VD Dictionary of dialect personality. - Tyumen: Tyumen State. un-t, 2000.

12. Lyutikova VD Linguistic personality: idiolect and dialect: author. dis. ... dr. filol. sciences. - Yekaterinburg, 2000.

13. Nefedova E.A. Lexico-semantic variation in the space of the dialect. - M .: Moscow State University, 2008.

14. Nefedova E.A. Expressive Dictionary of the Dialectal Personality. - M .: Moscow State University, 2001.

15. Complete dictionary of dialect language personality / ed. E. V. Ivantsova. - Tomsk: Tomsk state. un-t, 2006-2009. - T. 1-3.

16. Potebnya AA Thought and language: sobr. tr. - M .: Labyrinth, 1999.

17. Timofeev VP Personalities and language environment. - Shadrinsk, 1971.

18. Timofeev VP Dialect dictionary of personality: textbook. allowance. - Shadrinsk, 1971.

19. Language and personality / ed. Yu.N. Karaulova. - M .: Nauka, 1988.

Language is a sociocultural phenomenon that a person forms in the course of his life. Currently, the concept of “irreducibility” of the phenomenon of language to its codified version dominates in linguistics and sociolinguistics. As a result, the problems of functioning of those forms of language that are considered "stylistically reduced" are more actively studied - these are vernacular, jargon, argotic linguistic means. These forms of language include the language of the blogosphere.

Linguists consider the most important problem of determining what specifically opens 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 have led to the fact that the concept of slang, in particular the language of the blogosphere, belongs to the field of applied linguistics.

RO Yakobson reasonably argued that linguistics needs to study linguistic processes from all sides: modern, ancient, dead. The modern Internet is a fertile field for the study of linguistic processes, since the virtual world is a real "melting pot" in which the continuous development of the language and its transformation take place. This 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 study 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 identify 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 changes in vocabulary, 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-meaningful;

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 communicative process, several of the aforementioned areas are involved at once, but only one of them is considered dominant. Based on observations, we can conclude that the communicative process is motivated by the need for the exchange of messages between people. This motivation is considered the foundation of a formed and actively functioning speech process30.

Emotional and actual directions, on the contrary, are only able to be inside the speech process, moreover, according to different reason... The emotional direction is formed only by the subject of the message, or by the emotionally evaluating basis of it, in this case, this direction becomes the bearer of direct verbal reflection31.

The concept of "linguistic personality" is a linguistic term. Firstly, this is a characteristic of a native speaker based on the analysis of the texts he created in the aspect of how exactly he used the system means of the language to represent his perception of the world around him and to solve any problems. Secondly, "linguistic personality" is a way of describing the linguistic 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 VV Vinogradov.

Developing concepts such as "the image of the author" and "artistic image", the scientist investigated what the relationship between the "linguistic personality", the artistic image and the image of the author is in a work of art. The first description of a specific linguistic personality was also made by VV Vinogradov (chapter "Experiments in rhetorical analysis" in the collection "On the language of fictional prose").

The analysis of the functional features of the "uncodified" language is usually carried out from the point of view of the social and linguistic features of the linguistic subsystem under consideration, in our case - the slang of the Russian blogosphere.

The main social and 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 a common human culture.

The concept of subculture is used by such sciences as sociology, anthropology and cultural studies. The content of this concept lies in the designation of a closed community or social group 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 thing in common: they all abound in specific, "slang" words and expressions. Strange words and definitions, Englishisms, neologisms, incomprehensible abbreviations and abbreviations - all this is a characteristic feature of the blogosphere: "epicfail", "cap", "bgg", "LOL", "PPCS" - all these phrases indicate different degrees of emotional attitude of bloggers to the topic being commented on.

Actually, there is nothing exceptional in this - any Internet community, and even any community of interests, 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 this cannot be said about the language of the blogosphere - active Internet users of all ages use it not only in their forums and in the circle of like-minded people, but also use it in Everyday life, often irritating other participants in communication, those who are "not in the subject."

The modern period is characterized by certain features in the cultural and educational sphere: the expansion educational space, direct links between Russian and Western cultures, striving for self-realization. Thanks to all these circumstances, bloggers have every opportunity to create and update lexical units related to the English language, information technology, financial and economic activities, etc.

In modern social groups, we can observe the phenomenon of a mobile system, which includes a variety of subcultural entities (professional, territorial, status, etc.), and each has its own specific vocabulary, its own slang.

A characteristic feature of modern subcultures is their openness. Now, as a rule, it is natural for any modern, educated person to belong to several subcultural communities at once - for example, a blogger, a computer engineer, a former student, a car enthusiast, a hockey fan, etc. At the same time, everyone who once blogged on social networks remembers and understands the jargon of bloggers.

The virtual linguistic personality of the subject of a blog discourse 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 impact.

A linguistic person in the process of communication is faced with problems of self-identification. On the one hand, this is due to the contradiction between the globalization of society, when each participant in a communicative situation is interchangeable and becomes an average representative of the mass, and on the other hand, a surge of individualism, the desire to preserve identity, individualization personality, increased attention to their own "I".

The identity of a linguistic personality is a key element of subjective reality, it is formed by social processes and is 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:

Verbal-semantic; Cognitive; 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 is considered about the purpose for which the author of the text uses words and concepts, about the main idea of ​​the text.

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 psychologists 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 the 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 Yu.N. Karaulov's definition, a linguistic personality is “a set of human abilities and characteristics that determine the creation and perception of speech works (texts) that 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 he generates.

The interpretation of a linguistic personality is not only the linguistic aspect of personality psychology as a whole, but a full-fledged representation of the personality, which includes all aspects - from the mental and social and to other components reflected in the linguistic discourse.

The realization of the blogger's linguistic personality as a virtual personality takes place in the context 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 story 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 video on YouTube 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 lived here for 50 years. The daughter of an officer. Just believe me - not everything is so simple here ... Nobody wants to be separated !!! "

The expression "Crimean woman, daughter of an officer" became 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 and influencing; emotive; interpreting.

The information communicative strategy of blogging is based on the presentation of facts and translation of the knowledge of the author of the blog and his readers. Consequently, 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? commenting by the author. As a rule, this type of strategy prevails in the blogs of journalists who are deprived of personal records, or in hybrid blogs (a media representative maintains a personal blog that contains signs of a corporate one).

The main goal of a regulatory-influencing strategy is to cause the desired changes in the surrounding situation. This happens by the impact of various information on the consciousness of subscribers.

The main goal in the implementation of an emotive strategy is to express your feelings, emotions, assessments, communicative intentions, preferences, moods in relation to the speech manifestations of the addressee and the communicative situation in general. An interpretive strategy means a certain interpretation of events, statements about an event, analysis, interpretation of facts, expression of opinion, judgment. In other words, an interpretive communicative strategy allows not only reflecting the events of the surrounding reality, but also interpreting them in accordance with the author's system of values.

Interpretive communication strategy is dominant in blogs. However, as a rule, communication strategies are rarely presented in their pure form. The blogosphere has seen the use of several strategies at the same time. Therefore, after interpreting, an emotive strategy is most often used, which allows you to add additional expression and emotionality to the text, which is of particular importance in blogs, where subjectivity plays a large role. Information and regulatory strategies are used less frequently.

Chapter 1. Linguo-social methodology of mastering [a linguistic personality] the Russian language.

§1. Justification of the need to create a linguo-social methodology for the study of the Russian language.

§2. Subject and object of study of linguo-social methodology (linguistic personality and the way of using linguistic signs).

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

§4. The hermeneutic program as a way of assimilating linguo-social methodology.

Chapter 2. Linguo-social methods of organizing the practical activity of a linguistic personality in the Russian language.

§1. Linguo-social certification of Russian texts for teaching a linguistic personality to the Russian language.

§2. Formation of linguo-cognitive socionic competence of the Russian linguistic personality.

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

§4. Linguo-socionic algorithm for decoding socionic personality in Russian.

Dissertation introduction 2002, abstract in philology, Komissarova, Lyudmila Mikhailovna

The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by its inclusion in the scientific paradigm of anthropological linguistics, which is today "another hyphenated science within the framework of linguistics. Its niche is at the junction 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 AG, 1997: 27; Bogin GI, 1980: 39, Karaulov YN, 1987: 93, 252, 254, 255, 256], manifested, developing self-regulating in acts of communication. A linguistic personality is "a kind of full-fledged representation of a personality, containing both mental, social, and ethical and other components, but refracted through its language, its discourse" [Karaulov Yu.N., 1989, 252: 6].

The interdisciplinarity of studies of the linguistic personality in modern Russian studies implies the need to give issues related to its study the status of a methodological problem: "Such concepts cannot be given through definitions, but can only be" constructed "as a consideration of relations between heterogeneous" worlds. " individual, social and cultural "[TN Snitko, 1995: 201].

The problems of the linguistic personality are "the problems of the space in which the linguistic personality realizes itself as such" [TN Snitko, 1995: 201]. At the same time, space is understood as "a certain form of organization, for example, a certain form of organizing 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). Hence follows the "russistic" character of linguistic-social methodology, which offers a linguistic description of the Russian linguistic personality through the identification of the characteristic and optional content assigned to a linguistic sign - a word, a sentence and a text, which is recognized as an idio-ethnic component in linguistic cognitive models as opposed to the necessary component, which is a linguistic universal [Gizdatov G.G., Shelyakhovskaya JI.A., 1995: 62]. The linguistic personality in modern linguistics is studied in several directions.

Personality as a subject cognitive processes researched in a psycholinguistic direction. The language ability of the individual (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 generation and perception of speech - speech activity (the role of mental processes in speech generation) [Zhinkin N.I., 1964: 84, Zimnyaya I.A., 1978: 88, Kubryakova E.S., 1986: 114, Zalevskaya A .А., 1988: 86, Krasnykh VV, 1996: 110, 1999: 111] are the main problems of research in this direction. Language and speech are viewed as a tool for cognition and mastery of reality. The main methods of this direction are experimental methods (associative, the method of "semantic differential", etc.) and modeling of cognitive processes in the form of frame structures, propositions, concepts [Dyck T.A., 1989: 72, Minsky M., 1981: 143, Shabes V.Ya., 1985: 236]. The text acts as a unit of speech activity that allows you to recreate and simulate the process of speech generation, to study the patterns of its course and its relationship with mental processes [Kamenskaya OL, 1990: 91, Krasnykh VV, 1996,1999].

A linguistic personality as a carrier of linguistic traits, features - phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic, correlating with its social characteristics, belonging to a particular linguistic or speech community, social status, role in a communication situation is considered in the sociolinguistic direction [Avrorin V.A., 1975 : 3, Bell R., 1980: 30, Erofeeva T.I. 1995: 82,., Nikolsky LB, 1976: 156, Schweitzer AD, 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 you to reconstruct socially conditioned linguistic and speech personality traits that are common for a linguistic or speech community [Kochetkova TV, 1999: 109].

A linguistic personality from the point of view of national and linguistic specifics is described in the 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 investigated, expressed in texts as products and signs of a certain culture. The national linguistic personality is recreated through a comparative analysis of the 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 an ethnoculture is given Additional Information on the degree and areas of use, on various connotations specific to a given culture (the experience of compiling linguistic and cultural dictionaries).

A 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 personality's ability to communicate as a type of activity [Baranov A.G., 1997: 27, Zernetskiy 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 social and 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 studied 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 in this direction is the modeling method.

A linguistic personality from the point of view of its ability to learn a language (languages), develop and improve in linguistic and speech terms is considered in a linguodidactic direction (Bogin G.I., 1982: 38, Karaulov Yu.N., 1987: 93, Murzin L.N. ., Smepok IN, 1994: 149]. Linguistic personality - "a person, considered from the point of view of his readiness to perform speech acts, the one for whom language is speech" [Bogin GI, 1982, 38: 3] In linguodidactics at the present stage, there are two directions: teaching a person in the process of analytical activity, in the process of mastering various methods and techniques of analysis, Yu.N. Karaulov called "a methodological approach to the reconstruction of a linguistic personality." 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, G.I.Bogin, examines it from the point of view of a set - wide in the case of a developed linguistic personality, narrow - on the contrary - willingness to perform various speech acts, for example, stylistic readiness, readiness for good versification, readiness to express their experiences in an accessible way. for others the form, logical readiness and others [Bogin GI, 1982, 38: 26-40]. The author of the model does not provide an exhaustive list of readiness, as well as a description of their systemic connections. 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 mastering of productive speech, the ability of artistic criticism, the ability to make an aesthetic analysis of the text" (ibid. , page 25). All types of readiness, abilities and skills form the competence of a linguistic personality, determining the degree of his language proficiency. This model was named by Yu.N.

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

The second model, being a systematized, supplemented version of the readiness model, and named by the author - Yu.N. Karaulov-lingvodidactic, "connects data on the structure of the language, on the linguistic 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 the linguistic personality as a whole, there are sixty components, each of which is correlated with the concept of speech readiness.

The linguo-social methodology developed in this work is associated with the linguodidactic approach to the study of the linguistic personality. This connection is based on the consideration and giving the 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 case of coincidence of" semantic tricks "in the course of the exchange of communicative and cognitive activities "[Dridze T.M., 1980, 80:33]. Consideration of the language in this capacity presupposes the introduction of linguosocial methodology into everyday language practice, and the simplest and effective way this is learning.

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

The readiness model of the linguistic personality, developed by the linguosocial methodology, is created and functions primarily within the framework of the national language, which is the most important component of the national culture. In broad terms, the proposed methodology pursues the goal of "the formation and development of the national identity of the individual" [Abdulfanova AA, 1995: 2]; updates the content of the category of the 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 into the modern linguistic situation. The means of this is the hermeneutic form of linguistic education and training, which forms the readiness of the linguistic personality for the specific, through the introduction of students to the "hermeneutic research procedure when working on the text" [Bogin GI, 1982, 38:29], the reception of texts in their native language.

The linguo-social methodology of studying a linguistic personality presents understanding as a process and result of the reader's understanding of the way of understanding that was used by the author in mastering the situation of reality. In other words, the reader learns the world through the prism of the author's consciousness, exploring also the way of such cognition. In this case, the way of cognition is the socionic way.

Socionics is a science that studies the types of information exchange between a person and the environment and is put into work on the basis of the complementarity principle. Socionics is used as a means that "provides the personality with culture for understanding the elements of the language or the linguistic structure of texts" [Nikitina SE, 1989: 155] and helps the reader to understand the meaning of the message text, defining the socionic type of the author's linguistic personality. Socionic linguistic personality is reconstructed from the text of the message on the basis of four signs: rationality-irrationality, logicality-emotionality (ethics), sensory intuition (type of perception) and extroversion - introversion.

In linguo-social methodology, the study of the socionic properties of a linguistic personality is carried out on a methodological and linguistic basis, which consists of: linguodidakgika (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], linguosemiosociopsychological theory T.M. Dridze, style of decoding IV Arnold, pragmalinguistic studies [Arutyunova ND, Paducheva EV, 1985: 15, Zernetskiy PV, 1988: 87, Paducheva EV, 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 linked in this study by a common category of linguistic experience, already a category of hermeneutic experience, experience of understanding that arises, develops in communicative-cognitive activity and presupposes intuitive, individual, psychological knowledge of the text, in which the interfering influence of language is removed , the influence, both intralingual and interlanguage, on the system of psychological images of trainees "[Murzin LN, Smepok IN, 149: 111-112].

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

The significance of decoding stylistics for the research undertaken is determined by the open possibility of combining hermeneutic and informational 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, information is encrypted in linguistic signs.

Pragmalinguistic research constitutes the linguistic base of research. The use of linguistic signs in communicative, speech and textual activity, the connection of discourse structures with structures of consciousness and structures of consciousness and structures of discourse with structures of activity are the fundamental ideas of the proposed work. The pragmatic meaning of a linguistic sign [Arutyunova ND, 1988: 14, Nikitin MI, 1988: 152, Novikov LA, 1982: 160], propositional attitudes [Bulygina TV, Shmelev A.D. , 1989: 42, 1997: 43, Paducheva EV, 1996: 166, Shatunovsky IB, 1989: 240, 125] as linguistic and textual reflection of personality's intentions, they perform 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), the process of understanding, reflection as a methodology of understanding, hermeneutic research procedure, units of work with the text in the development of the reader's reflection; hermeneutic experience.

From the methods of linguistic experiment, method correlation analysis, commenting, modeling and other the main method of dissertation research is the modeling method. The objects of modeling are "procedures leading the scientist (in our case, the student - LK) to the detection of a particular linguistic phenomenon. These models imitate research activities"[Apresyan Y.D., 1966, 6:78]. The model developed in the study refers to semantic models of speech activity that" imitate the ability of native speakers to understand and construct meaningful sentences "[Apresyan Y.D., 1966, 6: 106 ], the ability to understand gets its development in hermeneutic activity Thus, the object of modeling is the hermeneutic research procedure, leading the interpreter (Russian linguistic personality) to discover the socionic code of the message text, and through it to the socionic properties of the linguistic personality of the author of the message. used in work information method quantitative and qualitative analysis [Gritsenko VI, Kanygin YM, Mikhalevich VS, 1986: 68], applied to linguistic signs, as well as induction and deduction as universal forms of scientific methodology.

The material of the research is poetic texts (M. Tsvetaeva, O. Mandelstam, A. Akhmatova, N. Gumilyov and B. Pasternak). The choice of research material is substantiated, firstly, by their belonging to the 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 corresponding skills." G.I., 1980: 39]. Secondly: "the language of the lyrics in many structural respects is closer to the spoken language. In the lyrics, there is only a shift in interpretation: side, background components of the semantics of egocentric elements - such as the presence of the speaker, observability - become the main ones" [E.V. Paducheva, 1996, 166: 209]. Mandatory presence

12 lyrical hero, the most direct (in comparison with other genres of fiction) self-expression and expression in the text of the individual experience of experience, understanding, assessment of various situations of reality presuppose the same obligatory contextual information of a socionic nature, while in prose genres with the system of expression of 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, another hermeneutic procedure. Thirdly, the high cultural, artistic and linguistic value of texts means the presence in them of didactic potential - the ability to act as texts-samples of communicative and language competence... Personalities were selected on the basis of their belonging to the same cultural and historical era, and the selection of texts for each of the poets was made 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 information in a 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 - linguo-social methodology. For the first time it is established that the type of communicative interaction of the interpreter with the text depends: first, on the socionic type of consciousness; second, the discourse of personality; thirdly, the intensional contexts of discourse and the types of connections between them.

The practical significance of the research is determined by the possibility of using the methods, materials and conclusions of the research 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 consists of: linguosocial methodology of mastering the Russian language by a Russian linguistic personality, developed within the framework of the hermeneutic approach, which in Russian linguodidactics is poorly equipped with interpretation techniques [Arnold IV, 1998: 10]; using the data of socionics, which has developed information models of human perception of the world, the main task of which is filtering and limiting signals coming from the outside; the identified correspondences of types and classes of propositional attitudes (as pragmatic units in the Russian language system) to socionic types of a linguistic personality and the patterns of their combination in a literary text.

The object of the 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 research 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 informational model of consciousness.

The aim of the research 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 the types of linguistic signs that can reflect the socionic characteristics of the consciousness of the author of the text of the message;

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

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

4) inscribing linguo-social 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 reconciling 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 decoding person about the socionic norm in its psychological, linguistic and informational aspects.

3. Hermeneutic textual activity allows the 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 attitude. The "peculiarity" of the propositional attitude lies in the fact that its real informativeness (the meaning recorded 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 learner takes place, which entails the formation of linguo-cognitive hermeneutic socionic competence as a link between communicative, speech and linguistic types of competencies, as well as effective mastering of the Russian language.

The work was tested at the following scientific seminars and conferences: the All-Russian scientific seminar "Man - communication - text" (Barnaul, 1995, 1997), the Interuniversity scientific and practical conference "Interpretation of the literary text" (Biysk, 1997), the International scientific conference "Culture and text "(Barnaul, 1997), International scientific conference" The language 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 bibliography and five appendices.

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Linguo-social methodology of studying the linguistic personality in the Russian language"

Conclusion

The result of the linguo-social methodology of studying the Russian language by a Russian linguistic personality was the identification of this type of behavior of linguistic signs in real communication processes as determinative behavior. Determination behavior of linguistic signs is due to the type of informational metabolism of the individual, or its psychological type.

The result of the study was also the creation of a linguo-social 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 linguo-social methodology.

Representation of a linguistic personality in linguo-social methodology as information system made it possible to trace the determination chain, where the initial link is the socionic property of the linguistic personality, manifested 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 linguistic system.

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

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

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

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 information content, which overlaps the real information content recorded in explanatory dictionary, in linguo-socionic methodology, it signals a special type of connotation - socionic.

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

The text as a linguistic sign demonstrates the secondary norm of the functioning of the language in intensional contexts, the 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 deterministic properties.

With the help of the scaling technique, the researcher gets the opportunity to model the linguistic 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 technique made it possible to describe the linguo-sociological ways of encoding a message. There are sixteen such codes, in accordance with the socionic personality typology.

The introduction of linguo-socionic methodology into everyday linguistic consciousness is possible as a hermeneutic program of an individualized nature, through its insertion into the general context of teaching Russian as a native language.

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

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

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

Linguo-social 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: publishing house of Yerevan University, 1976. - pp. 97-98.

2. Abdulfanova A.A. Language as a means of forming the national identity of the individual / Lexicon, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstracts. report and mess. int. scientific. conf. Yekaterinburg: USU publishing house, 1995. - pp. 37-38.

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

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

5. Antomonov Yu.G. Informatics and control in biological systems / Methodological problems of cybernetics and informatics: materials methodologist, philosopher. seminar. - Kiev: 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 language means. Moscow: Nauka, 1974. -364 p.

8. Apresyan Yu.D. Formal model of language and representation of lexicographic knowledge // Questions of linguistics. 1990. - No. 6. -S. 123-140.

9. Arnold I.V. Decoding style. Lecture course. - Leningrad: Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute 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. Shelonseva. Omsk: Publishing house of the Omsk GPU, 1998.-S.Z-10.

11. N. Arnold I.V. The stylistics of modern English. M .: Education, 1990 .-- 300 p.

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

13. Arutyunova N.D. "Believe" and "see" (to 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. Introduce, 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. On shame and conscience / Logical analysis of language: Languages ​​of ethics. M .: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 2000. - P.54-79.

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

19. Augustinavichute A. Socionics: an introduction. / Comp. L. Filippov. M, -SPb .: Publishing house ACT, 1998. - 448 p.2 0. Augustin 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. M .: Pravda, 1990.

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

23. Balaban P.M., Zakharov I.S. Learning and development: a common basis for two phenomena. Moscow: Nauka, 1992 .-- 152 p.

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

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

26. Bell R.T. Sociolinguistics. Objectives, methods and problems. / Ed. A.D. Schweitser. M .: International relationships, 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 linguo-methodological assessment of the quality of language teaching software. Candidate of Science dissertation manuscript philol. sciences. Novosibirsk, 1998 .-- 21 p.

29. Bogdanov V.B. Sentence contextualization / Sentence and text: semantics, pragmatics and syntax: interuniversity. Sat. Art. L .: publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1988. - p. 25-27.

30. Bogin G.I. Intentionality as a Means of Derivation to Semantic Worlds / Understanding and Interpretation of the Text: Collection of articles. scientific. works. -Tver: TSU publishing house, 1994.S. 12-19.

31. Bogin G.I. Schemes of the reader's actions in understanding the text: Textbook. allowance. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1989 .-- 70 p.

32. Bogin G.I. Philological hermeneutics: Textbook. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1982.86 p.

33. Bogin G.I. Modern linguodidactics: a textbook. -Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1980.61 p.

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

35. Brandes M.P. Style and translation. M .: Higher school, 1988 .-- 127s.

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

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

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

39. Vasiliev S.A. Synthesis of meaning while creating ™ and understanding the text. -Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1988.240 p.

40. Vasilyeva A.N. Basics of speech culture. Moscow: Russian language, 1990. -247 p. 47. Velichko L.I. Working with text in the lessons of the Russian language: A guide for the teacher. M .: Education, 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: (4-8 grades). 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 education and cf. school: Sat. scientific. works. Tver: TSU publishing house, 1991 .-- 152 p.

45. Vygotsky LS Psychology: Collection. M .: April-Press, 2000. -1007s.

46. ​​Ghadam er G.G. Truth and Method. Moscow: Progress, 1988. - 704 p.

47. Gak V.G. Statement and situation / Problems of structural linguistics. 1972. - Moscow: Nauka, 1973. - pp. 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 / Ed. N.V. Khalina. Barnaul: ASU publishing house, 1998.-91p.

50. Hermeneutics: history and modernity (critical essays). Moscow: Mysl ', 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. Moscow: Nauka, 1969 .-- 192 p.

52. A. V. Gladkiy. Syntactic structures of natural language in automated communication systems. - Moscow: Nauka, 1985.144 p.

53. Golev N.D. Some aspects of the determination of the content of linguistic units / Determination 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 and kova MI, Magomedova DM. Linguistic analysis of literary text. M .: Russian language, 1989 .-- 152 p.

55. Grabska M. Potential Dictionary of Students. Principles of its description and classification / Vocabulum et vocabularium: coll. scientific. works on lexicography / Ed. V.V. Dubichinsky. Kharkov, 1995. - Issue 2. - S.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, phil os. seminar. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1986. - pp. 24-36.

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

58. Gumilev N. Favorites. M .: Education, 1990 .-- 383 p.

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

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

61. Deykina A. D. Novozhilova F.A. Texts-miniatures in the lessons of the Russian language: a guide for the teacher. Moscow: 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 teaching? / Cognitive Learning: Current State and Prospects. M .: Publishing house of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - P.222-236.

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

64. Dobrovolskaya V.V. Flexible learning model and optimization perspectives educational process/ Lingvodidactic aspects of language description and flexible teaching model. Problems and Prospects: Sat. articles. M .: publishing house of Moscow State University, 1997. - S. 186-189.

65. Donskaya T.K. Developing function of educational texts / Theory and practice of creating communicatively oriented individualized textbooks of the Russian language: Abstracts. report and mess. int. conf. Tallinn: Tartu University Press, 1988, p. 310

66. Dosnon O. Creativity Development: Creativity and Learning / Cognitive Learning: Current State and Prospects. M .: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - P.66-67.

67. Druzhinin V.G. Diagnostics 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... Textbook. allowance / Ed. prof. A.A. Leontieva. 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: stratification research: Author's abstract. dis. doct. philol. sciences. SPb., 1995 .-- 50s.

71. Zherebilo T.V. From logical and grammatical principles to cognitive methods / Linguistics and school: Abstracts of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference / ed. Yu.V. Trubnikova. - Barnaul: Publishing house of ATU, 2000. - P.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 versus constructivism? // Perspectives: Comparative Research in Education. 1996. - Volume 25. - No. 1. - S. 11186.3alevskaya A.A. Comprehension of the text. Psycholinguistic aspect.

74. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988.204p. 87.3ernetsky P.V. Linguistic aspects of speech activity / Linguistic communication: processes and units. - Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988. - pp. 36-41.

75. Zimnyaya I.A. Psychological aspects of teaching to speak a foreign language. Moscow: Nauka, 1978 .-- 185 p.

76. Issers O.S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech: Avtoref. dis. doct. philol. sciences. Ekaterinburg, 1999 .-- 52 p.

77. Kamenskaya O. L. Text and communication. M: Higher school, 1990.152s.

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

79. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. Moscow: Nauka, 1987.264 p.

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

81. Kartasheva L. Determination of the individual style of the student by the content-cognitive components of the 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. V.E. Kemerov. Consciousness. Methodology. Post-industrial society. Intentionality // Modern philosophical dictionary. M, - Bishkek - Yekaterinburg, 1996 .-- 608s.

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

85. Kim I.E. On the construction of a dictionary of reflective vocabulary / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstracts. report and mess. int. scientific. conf. Yekaterinburg: USU publishing house, 1995. -S. 138-139.

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

87. Kpyukanov I.E. The dynamics of intercultural communication: towards the construction of a new conceptual apparatus: Author's abstract. dis. doct. phylogue. sciences. Saratov: Saratov State University Publishing House, 1999.-52 p.

88. Cognitive learning: current state and prospects. -M .: Publishing house of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997.296s.

89. Kozychev. E.P. On the influence of the multilevel properties of individuality on the teaching of foreign language dialogical speech (to the formulation of the problem) / Man as an integral system: interuniversity collection. 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. Context semantics. M: Nauka, 1980.-149 p.

92. Kolshansky G.V. Communicative function and structure of language. -M: Nauka, 1984.175 s.

93. Komlev N.G. Word in speech: denotative aspects. M .: publishing house of Moscow State University, 1992.216 p.

94. Kornilov Y. On the differences between the metacognitions of educational and professional activities / Cognitive learning: Current state and prospects. M .: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - pp. 192 - 194.

95. Kochetkova T.V. Linguistic personality of the bearer of elite speech culture: Author's abstract. dis. doct. philol. sciences. Saratov, 1999 .-- 54 p.

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

97. V.V. Krasnykh. The structure of communication in the light of the linguo-cognitive approach (communicative act, discourse, text): author. dis. doct. 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 sociocultural aspects / Language culture - ethnos: collection of articles. / ed. S.A. Arutyunova. - M .: Nauka, 1994 .-- P.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. Moscow: Nauka, 1986 .-- 440 p.

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

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

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

106. Linguistic foundations of language teaching. - M .: Nauka, 1983.272 p.

107. Linguistic analysis at school and university: Interuniversity collection of papers. scientific. works. Voronezh: Voronezh University Publishing House, 1983 .-- 160 p.

108. Linguodidactic aspects of language description and flexible teaching model. Problems and Prospects: Sat. articles. M .: publishing house of Moscow State University, 1997.-336 p.

109. Lingvo-stylistic and linguodidactic problems of communication: collection of articles. articles. -M .: MALP, 1997.120 s.

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

111. Loseva L.M. How the Text is Constructed: A Guide for Teachers. - M .: Education, 1980.94 p.

112. Lvov M.R. Methods for the development of students' speech // Russian language at school. 1985. - No. 4. - S.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: collection of articles. scientific. Art. / ed. Yu.N. Karaulova. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. - pp. 24-33.

115. Mandelstam O.E. Compositions. In 2 volumes.Vol. 1. Poems. - M .: Fiction, 1990.638 p.

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

117. Markus S. Teretic-plural models of languages. Moscow: Nauka, 1970 .-- 332 p.

118. Matkhanova I.P. Functions of predicatives of emotional state: potential and implementation / Linguistic personality: the problem of choice and interpretation of signs in the text: interuniversity collection. scientific. tr. -Novosibirsk: Publishing house of NGPU, 1994. P.47-48.

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

120. Matgoshkin A.M. Problem situations in thinking and learning. -M .: Pedagogika, 1972.168 p.

121. Makhmutov M.I. organization of problem-based learning at school. A book for teachers. M .: Education, 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. Methods for the development of speech in the lessons of the Russian language: Book for the teacher / Ed. T.A. Ladyzhenskaya. M .: Education, 1991 .-- 240 p.

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

126. Methodological consciousness in modern science... Kiev: 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 .: Energiya, 1979.- 151 p.

129. Mironova H.H. Evaluative discourse: problems of semantic analysis // Izv. RAS. SLIA. M. 1997 - t. 56. - No. 4. - P.52-59.

130. Modeling of linguistic activity in intelligent systems: collection of articles. articles / ed. A.E. Kibrik. Moscow: Nauka, 1987 .-- 279 p.

131. Mole A. Sociodynamics of culture. Moscow: Progress, 1973 .-- 406 p.

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

133. Murzin L.N. Anthropological niche in linguistic science / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstracts. report and mess. int. scientific. conf. Yekaterinburg: USU publishing house, 1995. - pp. 11-12.

134. Murzin L.N., Smenok I.N. How to teach a language? (about the basics of linguodidactics). Perm: Publishing house Perm. University, 1994 .-- 136 p.

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

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

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

138. Nikitina E.I. Coherent text in Russian lessons (from the teacher's experience). M .: Education, 1966. -328 p.

139. Nikitina E.I. Russian speech. Textbook for the development of coherent speech for 5-7 grades. general education. institutions / Scientific. ed. V.V. Babaytseva. M .: Education, 1996 .-- 191 p.

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

141. Nikolsky L.B. Synchronous Sociolinguistics. Moscow: Nauka, 1976 .-- 168 p.

142. V.M. Nikonov. Linguopragmatics and linguistic didactics: theory and practice / Modern pragmalinguistic studies of Romance, Germanic and Russian languages: collection of articles. scientific. articles. -Voronezh: Voronezh State Publishing House. University, 1996.S. 119-124.

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

144. Novikov L.A. Fictional 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 lesson of the Russian language / Linguodidactic basics of working on the text: collection of scientific. articles. Kursk: publishing house of Kursk ped. University, 1997. -S.14-15.

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

148. V. Odintsov. Stylistics of the text. Moscow: 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: Khakass University Publishing House, 2000. - pp. 144-152.

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

152. Pankratyev 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. Montagu grammar, mental representations and reality / Semiotics. M .: Raduga, 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 at Russian language lessons // Russian language at school. 2000. -№4.-С.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 distinguishing between language and speech / Functioning of language and norm: interuniversity. Sat. scientific. works. Gorky: GGPI im. M. Gorky, 1986. - S. 93-101.

161. Popov A.A. Barnaul: publishing house AKIPKRO, 1999. -S.21-34.

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

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

164. Pragmatic and textual characteristics of predicative and communicative units: collection of articles. scientific. works. Krasnodar: Publishing House Cube. state University, 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 pedagogical methodology and research methods. / Ed. M.A. Danilov and N.I. Boldyreva. M .: Pedagogika, 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: abstracts. second All-Russian scientific-practical. conf. Barnaul: publishing house BSPU, 1998.-316 p.

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

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

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

172. Development of speech: theory and practice of teaching: book. for the teacher. - M .: Education, 1991.342 p.

173. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Lectures on General Linguistics. M .: Nauka, 1990.-P.298-300.

174. G. I. Rozhkova. Fundamentals of Teaching Russian in Retrospective Reading and Perspective / Linguodidactic Aspects of Language Description and Flexible Teaching Model. Problems and Prospects: Sat. articles. M .: publishing house of Moscow State University, 1997 .-- 336 p.

175. Rubakin H.A. Psychology of the reader and the book. Moscow: Kniga, 1977.264 p.

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

177. Russian verb lexicon: denotative space. -Yekaterinburg: USU publishing house, 1999.460 p.

179. N.K. Ryabtseva Ethical knowledge and their "subject" 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: collection of articles. 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 systemic concept of text. The manuscript of the dissertation of doctor filol. sciences. Tashkent, 1986 .-- 420 p.

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

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

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

186. Snitko T.N. Linguistic personality as a methodological problem / Vocabulary, grammar, text in the light of anthropological linguistics: abstracts. report and mess. int. scientific. conf. Yekaterinburg: USU publishing house, 1995. - pp. 36-37.

187. The current situation and the training of the teacher of the Russian language in the pedagogical institution: abstracts of the report of the academic inter-university scientific-practical conference. M .: MGLU, 1997.-56p.

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

189. Solganik G.Ya. Syntactic stylistics. M .: Higher school, 1991.-182 p.

191. Improving the methods of teaching the Russian language: collection of articles. articles. -M .: Education, 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. M .: Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. N.K. Krupskoy, 1990 .-- 187 p.

193. Sorokin N. A. Didactics. Study guide for ped. in-tov. Moscow: Education, 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 linguistic situations and linguistic states in countries. Moscow: Nauka, 1976 .-- 224 p.

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

197. Stylistics and pragmatics: abstracts. 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 methodol. Philos. seminar. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1986. -S. 39-57.

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

200. Susov I.P. Activity, consciousness, discourse and 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: collection of articles. articles. Kalinin: publishing house of KSU, 1988. - pp. 22-29.

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

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

204. Text as an object of linguistic and psychological-pedagogical research: abstracts. brought, scientific-theoretical conference. Perm: publishing house of the Perm state. University, 1982 .-- 98p.

205. Theory and practice of creating communicative-oriented individualized textbooks of the Russian language: abstracts. report and mess. int. 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: collection of articles. scientific. works. Krasnodar: Publishing House Cube. state University, 1987 .-- S. 64-69.

207. Tugushev R.Kh. Systems Personology: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis. Saratov: publishing house of the state. UC "College", 1998.-272 p.

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

209. The lesson of the Russian language at the present stage (collection of articles from work experience). A guide for teachers. Moscow: Education, 1978 .-- 144 p.

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

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

212. Figurovsky I.A. The syntax of the whole text and student's written work 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 a school textbook / Cognitive learning: Current state and prospects: collection of articles. 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. V. V. Tselishchev. Logical truth and empiricism. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publishing House, 1974 .-- 113 p.

216. The human factor in language: Linguistic mechanisms of expressiveness. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.214 p.

217. N.V. Cheremisina. Semantics of Possible Worlds and Lexico-Semantic Acts M .: Nauka, 1982. - 90 p.

218. Chugrov S.B. Stereotypes in the public consciousness 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. M .: Higher school, 1989 - 175 p.

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

221. Shansky N.M., Makhmudov Sh.A. Philological analysis of literary text. SPb .: Special literature, 1999.-319s.

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 s.

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

226. Schweitzer AD Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M .: Nauka, 1977.176 p.

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

228. Shcherbin V.K. On the methodological meaning of building a detailed dictionary 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. Moscow: Nauka, 1977 .-- 168 p.

230. Shmeleva T.V. The proposal and the situation in the syntactic concept of T.P. Lomtev // Philological sciences. 1983. - No. 3. - S.2-48.

231. Shpet G.G. Hermeneutics and its problems / Context. Moscow: 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: collection of articles. 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: collection of articles. scientific. Art. / ed. Yu.N. Karaulova. Moscow: Nauka, 1989 .-- 216 p.

236. Linguistic activity in the aspect of linguistic pragmatics: collection of articles. reviews. Moscow: Nauka, 1984 .-- 222 p.

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

238. Linguistic personality: problems of designation and understanding: abstracts. report scientific. conf. Volgograd: Publishing house Volgogr. ped. University "Change", 1997. - 144s.

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. Moscow: Nauka, 1977.-pp. 86-104.

241. Yakovleva E.S. Fragments of the Russian linguistic 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: collection of articles. scientific. works on lexicography / Ed.

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

244. Consolidated linguosocial table

245. Characteristics of the function Code symbol Type of author according to K. Jung W Type of author according to A. Augustinav ichute Leading aspect in mastering the situation of reality Type of intensive context Basic propositional attitude

246. Rational ER Thinking Logic Material objects and substances Logical I factual Thinking AND L Relationships between material objects and substances, logical systems Logical system Thinking

247. E E Emotional Ethic Energetic and emotional state of objects Emotional For example, having fun

248. And I Emotional and energetic relationships between objects, ethical systems Ethical love / hate

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

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

251. To rationalize the leading function of perception, it is necessary rational function... The laws of combination are the same: an extraverted leader presupposes an introverted creative one, and vice versa. Text code 1.s Е L Е L F t F t p R p 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 isp \ R t t F s I R p L E s I t F L E1. Digger

255. T d A 3 p p D M s p k k 3 k p p 1 LFR 3 k E p in ch r O d

256.D t 3 A p p M d p s k k k 3 p p

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

259. ESPT

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

261. RF d o r h v p E k 33 k r p t d A 3 p p e M s p k k

262. ETPS 4 row 3 to E p vk 3 p p d t 3 A p p M d p s k k

263. M p p d o k 3 E p p

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

265. FLIR E 3

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

267. TESP E k 3 dr h in ps p k k 3 K r p t d A 3 p p e M

268. FRIL p in h R o d 3 to Ep s k k to 3 p r d t 3 A p p M d

269. TPSE p p p r p d o k 3 Ek k s p e M p p A 3 t d p 3 k

270. FIES in p E 3 code ch pk k p s M d p p 3 A d p p p 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 5а) RO - related (group 2)

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

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

In modern science, there are various methods of studying the speech of an individual. These methods include:

the study of linguistic personality;

characteristics of a person's speech from the standpoint of his speech culture;

research of linguocultural type;

the study of a person's speech as a representative of a separate professional or social group;

social and speech portraiture.

Let's consider each of the named approaches.

Learning linguistic personality

The central place in the study of an individual linguistic personality as a typical or generalized representative of a certain social and professional group is occupied by the concept of the linguistic personality of Yu. N. Karaulov [Karaulov 1987].

The appeal to the study of the linguistic personality in Russian linguistics is associated with the name of V.V. Vinogradov, who, based on the material of fiction, developed ways of describing the linguistic personality of the author and the character. The term “linguistic personality” itself was first used in the publication of VV Vinogradov “On fictional prose” [Vinogradov 1980].

The description of a linguistic personality allows for different approaches. One of them is based on the study of the speaker's recordings for a certain time (the features of his speech behavior in different communicative situations are investigated), i.e. in essence, the “linguistic existence” of a person is analyzed [Erofeeva 1990]. At the same time, the study of the dynamics of the linguistic personality, the role-switching of the individual in changing communicative situations is brought to the fore.

A complete description of a linguistic personality for the purpose of its analysis or synthesis assumes:

a) a characteristic of the semantic-combat level of its organization (that is, either an exhaustive description of it, or a differential one that fixes only individual differences and is carried out against the background of an average representation of a given linguistic system, which is more acceptable);

b) reconstruction of the linguistic model of the world, or the thesaurus of a given person (based on the texts produced by her or on the basis of sociological testing);

c) identification of life or situational dominants, attitudes, motives, which are reflected in the processes of generating texts and their content, as well as in the peculiarities of the perception of other people's texts.

In numerous interpretations of the linguistic personality that appeared in the 80-90s. XX century, two main directions are distinguishable: linguodidactics and linguoculturology. Linguodidactic and linguoculturological approaches differ in the ways of describing a linguistic personality.

Linguodidactics is distinguished by a "large" scale when describing a linguistic personality (the focus is on the individual as a set of speech abilities) [Eiger, Rapport 1992]. For cultural linguistics, on the contrary, a “small” scale is characteristic when describing a linguistic personality: the subject of research is “a national and cultural prototype of a speaker of a certain language ...”, a collective cultural and historical image - “a linguistic personality exists in the space of culture reflected in consciousness at different levels (scientific, everyday, etc.), in behavioral stereotypes and norms, in objects of material culture, etc. The decisive role in culture belongs to the values ​​of the nation, which are concepts of meanings ”[Maslova 2001: 120]. Thus, if in the first case the linguistic personality is represented by a set of hypostases in which the individual is embodied in the language, then in the second - the set of individuals constitutes the image of the linguistic personality.

The linguodidactic approach to the linguistic personality in the works of modern researchers goes back to the views of G.I.Bogin. GI Bogin proposed a model of linguistic personality, according to which this concept is understood as: "a person considered from the point of view of his readiness to perform speech actions." The linguodidactic direction is developed mainly on modern, synchronous material, therefore, its supporters are characterized by attention to the relation: linguistic norm - speech realization [Bogin 1984].

The most important characteristic of a linguistic personality is its impact on society. Among the various types of modern Russian culture, V. I. Karasik in his article "Speech behavior and types of linguistic personalities" especially highlights the position of "television presenter" [Man and his discourse: 30].

This type is associated with power, is the bearer of its voice. The TV presenter is distinguished by a high degree of intelligence, educated, his speech is impeccable, he is fluent in a foreign language, norms of etiquette, is prone to subtle humor and irony. The TV presenter is a linguistic expert and in this sense inherits the characteristics of the linguistic personality of the Russian intellectual [Man and his discourse: 31].

Despite the fact that the method of studying a linguistic personality is currently one of the most developed and popular in linguistics, it is not possible to use this method within the framework of this thesis, since it requires an analysis of a large volume of practical material.