CC BY
20ЯЗЫКОВАЯ ЛИЧНОСТЬ В ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННОЙ И ЗАРУБЕЖНОЙ ЛИНГВИСТИКЕ: ПОНЯТИЕ,
СТАТУС, ТИПОЛОГИЯ
Саяхмет С.С., докторант Кушегенова И. Т., докторант Туманова А.Б.
д.ф.н., профессор кафедры русской филологии и мировой литературы Казахского национального
университет им. аль-Фараби
LANGUAGE PERSONALITY IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN LINGUISTICS: CONCEPT, STATUS,
TYPOLOGY
Sayakhmet S.,
doctoral student Kushegenova I.,
doctoral student Tumanova А.
D.p.s, Professor of the department of Russian Philology and World Literature of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6616185
Аннотация
Статья посвящена проблеме определения категории «языковая личность» в современной науке. В ней представлен краткий обзор научной информации о становлении понятия данного феномена и его статуса в лингвистике. А также в работе поднимаются вопросы о типологии языковой личности и моделировании ее структуры. Авторами представлено свое понимание и интерпретация понятия языковой личности, в частности профессиональной языковой личности.
Abstract
The article is devoted to the problem of defining the category of "linguistic personality" in modern science. It presents a brief overview of scientific information about the formation of the concept of this phenomenon and its status in linguistics. The paper also raises questions about the typology of a linguistic personality and modeling its structure. The authors present their understanding and interpretation of the concept of a linguistic personality and in particular, a professional linguistic personality.
Ключевые слова: языковая личность, профессиональная языковая личность, модель, понятие, статус, типология.
Keywords: linguistic personality, professional linguistic personality, model, concept, status, typology.
The problem of studying the linguistic personality, its manifestation in all significant areas of social life from the standpoint of anthropocentrism attracts close attention of teachers, psychologists, linguists, etc. This explains the choice of the topic of our study. At present, the scientific literature presents a significant amount of knowledge regarding the phenomenon of «linguistic personality» both in foreign and domestic linguistics (clarification: under the term «domestic linguistics» we consider the works of Russian and Kazakhstani scientists in the field of linguistics of the Soviet and postSoviet periods).
In the issue of defining the concept and status of a linguistic personality, scientists proceed from different positions and consider different aspects of this phenomenon, which explains the lack of a unified approach in science today, an accurate definition and understanding of a linguistic personality (hereinafter - LP).
The category of LP in the scientific community is mostly perceived positively: it is taken into account in studies of both scientific and scientific-methodological nature. However, there are also negative reactions. So,
for example, V.A. Chudinov believes that the term «linguistic personality» is semantically oversaturated like «butter oil», because there simply is no «non-linguistic personality»: the concept of language is already included in the concept of personality, which becomes a personality only in the process of socialization [Chudinov, p. 3]. And the famous Polish scientist A.K. Ki-klevich writes: «The problem of the "linguistic personality" is purely Russian; in Western linguistics, no one, it seems to me, deals with this. Although the concepts of idiostyle and idiolect are well and widely known. In principle, I do not understand what it is - a linguistic personality. Do you mean Vladimir Nabokov or Uncle Vasya, a locksmith from a neighboring apartment? What is the difference between a «linguistic personality» and a «native speaker»? The concept of personality means individuality ...» (from personal correspondence dated November 9, 2021).
The purpose of this article is an analytical review of the formation of the concept of a linguistic personality from the first attempts to comprehend the language
as an integral part of a person to the universal recognition of the anthropocentric paradigm as fundamental in the field of the humanities from the standpoint of modernity.
Observations and analysis of scientific sources devoted to the problem under consideration showed the need to study the linguistic personality as a person speaking in a wider scientific space, as well as the recognition of LP as a complex multifaceted phenomenon needs further serious reflection.
Materials and methods
The material for the study was scientific sources (scientific articles, monographs, etc.) devoted to the description of the linguistic personality as a complex phenomenon. The features of this category as a multi-level, multi-aspect phenomenon, as well as the main approaches to its study are considered. In the course of the work, the following methods and techniques were used: analysis and synthesis, generalizations and systemati-zation, comparative analysis, methods of interpretation and modeling, descriptive method, etc.
It is known that the anthropocentric approach to language has its own premises, which are revealed in the fundamental works of such famous scientists as W. von Humboldt, F. de Saussure, G. Steinthal, G. Paul, G. Osthof, K. Brugman, E. Sapir, S. Bally, E. Benveniste; A.A. Potebnya, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, D.N. Ovsyanikov-Kulikovsky and others. Let us cite the statement of the famous German scientist W. von Humboldt: «... language should be considered, in my deep conviction, as directly embedded in a person. It would be impossible to invent a language if its type were not already embedded in the human mind» [Humboldt, p. 313].
The object of research by German neogrammarists (G. Ostgof, K. Brugman, G. Paul and others) was a speaking person, and psychologism and individualism were the main provisions in determining the essence of language; from the position of these scientists: there are as many separate languages in the world as there are individuals [Ostgof, Brugman, Paul, p. 58].
The American scientist E. Sapir believes that the uniqueness of an individual is reflected in the language through the choice of verbal and non-verbal means used both at the individual and social levels, in the style of speech practice [Sapir, p. 286].
The Swiss linguist S. Balli investigated issues related to the specifics of individual speech and its differences from the language norm of society, as well as the choice of language means depending on the situation of communication. The scientist studied the language in the process of social influence: imperative and normative influence (explicit for the addressee); suggestive influence (through certain indications and suggestions); auto-suggestive influence (auto-indication) [Balli, p. 148]. ].
Similar to the above points of view of foreign scientists are found in the works of Russian scientists. For example, the idea of the connection between language and thinking can be traced in the studies of A. A. Po-tebnya, he wrote: «... language is a means not to express a ready-made thought, but to create it, that it is not a reflection of the prevailing worldview, but an activity
that composes it» [Potebnya, р. 151]. The problems of «language as an individual phenomenon» and «language and the human psyche» were also studied by I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. In his opinion, «language exists only in individual brains, only in souls, only in the psyche of individuals or individuals that make up a given linguistic society»; he sees the reason for linguistic changes in the mental activity of a person [Baudouin de Courtenay, p. 71].
For the first time in linguistics, the concept of a linguistic personality appears almost simultaneously in the works of the German scientist Y.L. Weisgerber and the Russian scientist V.V. Vinogradov (in the 30s of the XX century). So, for example, Y.L. Weisgerber considers language as a common cultural asset, while the researcher argues that «no one owns a language only because of his own linguistic personality; on the contrary, this linguistic proficiency grows in him on the basis of belonging to a linguistic community» [Weisgerber, p. 81]. At the same time, V.V. Vinogradov in the process of studying fiction uses the phrase «linguistic personality» to the image of the author and the images of the character / her [Vinogradov, pр. 61; 91]. As you can see, in its first use, this concept in the works of these researchers does not receive its exact definition. Only with the advent of a new paradigm in linguistics - an-thropocentric - the concept of a linguistic personality acquired a terminological status and entered into a wide scientific circulation (70-80 years of the XX century). Changes in scientific guidelines are also associated with anthropocentrism: «a person becomes a starting point in the analysis of certain phenomena», he becomes an object of comprehensive research and «is involved in this analysis, determining its prospects and ultimate goals» [Kubryakova E.S., p. 212].
A significant contribution to the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in modern linguistics was made by the French scientist E. Benveniste, known in science as the founder of the linguistic theory of subjectivity. Subjectivity in the concept of the scientist is presented in the following thoughts: «manifestation of the fundamental property of language in a person», «language is created according to the measure of a person, and this scale is imprinted in the very organization of the language» [Benveniste: quoted by Y.S. Ste-panov, p.15; 294].
During the period under review in linguistics, there is a change of research interests from the object to the subject, which makes the problems of studying not so much a language as a speaking person relevant (A.A. Leontiev, R.A. Budagov, etc.). According to R.A. Bu-dagov, without taking into account the human factor, language receives only one-sided interpretation [Buda-gov]. Observations have shown that in these years there is a process of integration of scientific knowledge, which later led to the emergence of new scientific areas: linguoculturology, linguo-sociology, cognitive linguistics, linguo-pragmatics, discourse studies, linguistic conceptology, linguopersonology, etc. In this regard, from the position of these scientific areas, the concept linguistic personality is recognized as integrative, and therefore the study of a human speaker as a complex
multidimensional phenomenon is fully justified. This will be discussed in more detail below.
Discussion and results
Linguistic personality is considered by Russian scientists from various positions (linguistic, linguodi-dactic, linguoculturological and other approaches), therefore, it does not have an unambiguous definition (Vinogradov V.V., Bogin G.I., Karaulov Yu.N., Prokhorov Y.E., Klobukova L.P., Karasik V.I., Siro-tinina O.B., Kochetkova T.V., Neroznak V.P., Snitko T.N., Shakhovsky V.I., Vorozhbitova A.A., Frolov N.K. and others).
In the 80s of the twentieth century, G.I. Bogin expanded and clarified the concept of LP; he considers under the linguistic personality the subject of speech activity - «as a carrier of readiness to create and accept works of speech (texts)» [Bogin, p.8]. In his definition, the scientist notes the prospect of the development of a linguistic personality in its intellectual field of activity, since already in ontogenesis a person receives the first experience of creating, perceiving and understanding other people's texts. The researcher has proposed his own LP model, in which 5 levels of its development are distinguished:
1. The first level is the level of correctness;
2. The second level is the level of internalization;
3. The third level is the level of saturation;
4. The fourth level is the level of adequate choice;
5. The fifth level is the level of adequate synthesis.
G.I. Bogin distinguishes the linguistic personality
in general and the linguistic personality of the student as a subject of speech activity, a full participant in communication, who owns a certain system of basic philological knowledge, which, in turn, allows him to encode and decode texts of varying degrees of information richness and its linguistic embodiment. In the concept of describing a «linguistic personality», the researcher analyzed it taking into account contradictions, because he sees inconsistency in its formation and existence, and the source of contradictions lies in the fact of the development of the linguistic personality itself [Bogin, p. 8].
Y.N. Karaulov, who understands it as «the totality of a person's abilities and characteristics that determine the creation of speech works (texts)» [Karaulov, p. 245]. The scientist proposed his own complex system of LP, distinguishing three levels in it: 1) verbal-semantic, or personality lexicon; 2) linguo-cognitive, represented by the thesaurus of personality; 3) motivational, or the level of activity-communicative needs, reflecting the pragmatics of the individual [Karaulov, p. 238]. Y.N. Karaulov focuses on the fact that each level is characterized by its own set of units and relations between them, and also notes the possibility of opposing the levels of one to another and in a certain way their interaction in the speech activity of an individual. This approach of the researcher presented possible ways of studying LP with varying degrees of generalization, highlighting different aspects of the study of LP that determine the uniqueness of its existence.
The main concepts presented in the works of G.I. Bogin and Y.N. Karaulov, were developed, refined, ex-
panded in the studies of their followers (L.P. Klobukova, A.G. Baranov, I.V. Sentenberg, A.A. Vorozhbitova, E.V. Ivantsova, etc.).
In general, in modern science, scientists, actualizing one or another of its aspects of the «linguistic personality» phenomenon, consider this category within the framework of the forms of existence: the study of a linguistic personality as an individual (private) or typified (general, collective) phenomenon and in the aspect of dynamics or statics.
Linguistic personality as an individual phenomenon. Scientists study the verbal and non-verbal, stylistic features of the speech of a certain native speaker, the so-called idiolect. Along with the idiolect, the idiostyle, i.e., the individual style of this or that writer/poet, is also studied. a certain author, inherent in all his works (Pushkin's idiolect and idiostyle, Abai's idiolect and id-iostyle).
The speaker is a participant in social life: he manifests himself in speech activity and communication with other people. In this regard, it is proposed to use the following terms: «linguistic personality», «speech personality» and «communicative personality» (V.I. Karasik, V.B. Kashkin, L.P. Klobukova, V.P. Konetskaya, V.V. Krasnykh, O. A. Leontovich, Yu. E. Prokhorov, K. F. Sedov, N. I. Formanovskaya and others).
Linguistic personality as a collective phenomenon. Scientists study the linguistic personality in the generalized image of a native speaker as a collective linguistic personality in all its aspects (V.P. Neroznak, T.N. Snitko, S.G. Vorkachev, V.A. Maslova, I.V. Sentenberg and others). So, for example, in science, an eth-nosemantic (S.G. Vorkachev), linguocultural (V.A. Maslova) personality is distinguished, under which the LP appears as a set of worldview attitudes, behavioral stereotypes and value priorities, reflected at the lexical level of the language. And within the framework of the study of the national character, the study of the national LP as a representative of one or another ethnic group is carried out: Russian, American, English, etc. (Y.N. Karaulov, Y.N. Filippovich, etc.).
In accordance with the progressive stages of the development of science in the domestic scientific literature, various approaches to the study of LP have developed: linguistic, linguo-stylistic, linguodidactic, so-ciolinguistic, psycholinguistic, linguoculturological, linguocognitive. Next, we will briefly discuss each of them.
1. Linguistic approach to the study of LP. This approach is based on the attitude of the individual to the language, which involves the study of linguistic personalities as native and foreign (foreign) language speakers, as bilinguals (with a different type of dominant language), as linguistic personalities with different levels of linguistic competence, etc. (V.G. Kostomarov, E.M. Vereshchagin, O.S. Akhmanova, Y.E. Prokhorov, L.P. Klobukova, O.D. Mitrofanova, E.F. Tarasov, etc.)
2. Linguodidactic approach to the study of LP. Scientists rely on the idea of the possibility of purposeful formation of LP within the framework of a particular pedagogical space. The methods of formation and development of certain competencies form the basis of
numerous developments of linguodidactic problems of LP (G.I. Bogin, N.A. Deryabina, V.A. Kozyrev, L.A. Milovanova, V.D. Chernyak, etc.) .
3. Linguistic and stylistic approach to the study of LP. Researchers consider LP as an image of the author, as types of characters in works of art (V.V. Vinogradov, D. Blagoy, N.D. Tamarchenko, etc.). From the standpoint of this approach, scientists focus on describing the language and style of a particular person, known to most people by the results of their activities in a particular area, for example: the Great Peter (N.I. Gainul-lina), Ivan (Grozny) the Terrible (O.V. Popova ) and others. LP is studied as a bilingual personality of a Russian-speaking writer (U.M. Bakhtikireeva), as a personality of a bilingual writer - a Russian-speaking Kazakh writer (A.B. Tumanova, R.O. Tokseitova, M.B. Amal-bekova, etc. ).
4. Sociolinguistic approach to the study of LP. This approach is based on the identification of personality types according to certain social characteristics: gender, age, level of education, professional activity, etc. For example, LP of a teenager and an adult, men and women; LP politician, military, teacher, journalist, scientist, etc. (V.V. Kolesov, L.P. Krysin, V.D. Chernyak, T.A. Milyokhina, E.Ya. Shmeleva, E.V. Osetrova, V.I. Karasik and others). V.I. Karasik also proposes the allocation of various types of institutional discourse based on the social institutions of society, characterized by the originality of communication of typical participants (political, religious, medical and other discourses) [Karasik, p. 226].
5. Psycholinguistic approach to the study of LP. Scientists investigate the problems associated with the study of the perception and generation of speech by a linguistic personality, as well as problems related to speech behavior in the ontogenesis of a linguistic personality (K.F. Sedov, O.E. Morozova, etc.).
6. Linguistic and cultural approach to the study of LP. Researchers consider a linguistic personality as a carrier of a particular culture/ethnos and represent different types. From the standpoint of ethnocultural linguistics, within the framework of this approach, carriers of basic and marginal cultures are distinguished, which are in opposition to each other «friend or foe» [Karasik, p. 12]. From the standpoint of the type of speech culture, the carrier of which is LP, it seems justified to single out a linguistic personality - the carrier of an elite, dialectal, colloquial and other speech culture (V.A. Maslova, E.V. Ivantsova, M.A. Kormilitsyn, T.V. Kochetkova, O.B. Sirotinina and others).
7. Linguocognitive approach to the study of LP. Scientists (E.S. Kubryakova, V.Z. Demyankov, A.N. Baranov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, N.N. Boldyrev, Z.D. Popova, I.A. Sternin, A.A. Kibrik, E.V. Rakhilina, M.V. Pimenova and others) study the LP in the light of its inherent cognitive structures and processes, as a carrier of knowledge and ideas that are the result of its cognitive activity, since «the sphere of vital interests of cognitive linguistics includes «mental the foundations of speech understanding and production from the point of view of how the structures of linguistic knowledge are presented («represented») and participate in the processing of information» [Demyankov, p. 21].
In scientific research until the 80-90s of the XX century, LP acquired a categorical status and was studied in statics. At the beginning of the XXI century. there is an interest of scientists to LP as a dynamic phenomenon. As is known, the study of LP in this aspect was proposed by Y.N. Karaulov on the basis of the concept of an all-Russian language type he introduced.
There are two ways to study LP in development: 1) with the help of an associative experiment extended in time; 2) through the study of LP texts from different historical eras. In the first case, the method of building up associative chains is used in the work of A.K. Agibalov. His research studies the patterns of probabilistic organization of a person's internal lexicon depending on his belonging to a certain community, and the creation of an idiolexicon model that can act as the basis of a lexical minimum in professionally oriented teaching of Russian as a foreign language [Agibalov]. And also the method of verbal associative-frequency series of A.N. Leontiev, R.M. Frumkina. The research procedure consisted in presenting to the subjects a set of stimulus words from 40 Russian nouns in order to perform a scaling operation in accordance with subjective ideas about their frequencies. Stimulus words are selected in such a way that the list contains high-frequency (20) and low-frequency words, as well as nonexistent (6), it is so-called "anchor words" [Leontiev, p. 6; Frumkina, p. 40].
In the second case, the study of LP is carried out by studying the verbal associative frequency series presented in written sources, for example: materials of the epistolary of LP of the Great Peter (N.I. Gainullina), business messages of LP of Ivan the Terrible (O.V. Popova). According to the Kazakh scientist N.I. Gainullina, LP in the past «can be restored and studied only through such semiotic constructions that imprinted a linguistic personality, such as written texts that reflected a person's speech activity in the past», collected over a long period of time. The scientist proposes to «distinguish between the real linguistic personality and the linguistic personality of the artist of the word - the writer, the poet, who realizes the artistic linguistic personality in his work» [Gainullina, p. 12].
O.V. Popova, who studied the LP of Ivan IV, notes that the communicative preferences of Ivan the Terrible are not homogeneous and are presented in different ways in his linguistic personality, and also depend on which mask he uses in each specific situation. The masks in the linguistic personality of Ivan the Terrible are clearly defined and reduced to a certain set, explicated by the corresponding linguistic forms ... the choice of masks and the image of the addressee depends not only on the communicative goals and intentions of Ivan the Terrible, but also on the addressee, on the situation in which the letter was written , from the political position of the state, from the tone of the received message and from the desire of the king to impress the listeners [Popova, p. 13].
R.S. Ilyasova, agreeing with the definitions of scientists, emphasizes that LP is a complex phenomenon that requires deep analysis and comprehensive observation. A linguistic personality is a specific person with
his own consciousness, free will, his own complex inner world and individual attitude to the environment [Ilyasova, p. 33].
Let us give one more definition of LP from the studies of N.K. Frolov: «The phenomenon of a linguistic personality for a linguist is revealed through the cognitive assessment of speech culture, the multifaceted speech activity of homo sapiens. The concept of a linguistic personality involves the study of the fact that a person is aware of his own mental behavior, knowledge of a language or a group of languages. Both in general can become the starting point for the phenomenon of linguistic personality. The phenomenon of personality in general and linguistic personality in particular is thus concretized in the mind of the analyst through a spectrum of special, unusual, rich, famous, original possession, speech heritage. The phenomenon of a linguistic personality is a manifestation of the superpowers of a particular individual in his speech activity. A linguistic personality realizes itself thanks to special qualities, reflective possibilities of cognition of the linguistic space» [Frolov, p. 323].
A.A. Vorozhbitov, based on the above concept of Y.N. Karaulova, proposed her own ideal model of LP -a professional LP, a specialist of the XXI century. According to the scientist, the structural components of the model are: high LR (LR - linguistic-rhetorical competence - our clarification) competence and general educational/professional erudition of an extralinguistic nature - correlate as a form and content of ethically responsible speech and thought activity, being updated by the dialogic strategy of sociocultural communication. According to her, a high level of LR competence, i.e. the efficiency of all mechanisms of its implementation in different registers, modes, forms of communication, styles, types and genres of speech in actual speech events of various types, turns the subject of speech-thinking activity into a strong linguistic personality [Vorozhbitova, p. 88]. Vorozhbitova gives the following definition of a professional LP: «it is a strong (due to the high integral LR competence) linguistic personality of a democratic, dialogic, multicultural type, which has ethical responsibility for the products of its speech and thinking activity and the necessary general cultural, general professional and special training in the field of philological and humanitarian knowledge, implemented in the fields of science, education and culture» [Vorozhbitova, p.11].
Summarizing the definitions of LP given in the works of the above scientists, we will try to state our understanding of the term in relation to the LP of a teacher-philologist - this is a professional LP, which is a complex multifaceted structure, it has the necessary general scientific, general cultural and special training in the field of philological education, shows superpowers in its speech activity, the formation of a model of which is carried out on the basis of the ability of the LP to perform speech actions and create text/s (discourse) of various types at the linguo-cognitive level, represented by the thesaurus. In our understanding of the term «thesaurus» as a dictionary of highly specialized terms, we agree with the opinion of P.V. Sterkenburg, W. Hullen that existing general language thesauri, as a
rule, are among onomasiological dictionaries, that is, unlike alphabetic dictionaries that are devoted to words as units of speech, they represent the connection from concept to word, placing words in accordance with their semantic similarity, facilitate the achievement of a vocabulary that is closest to the intended meaning [Sterkenburg, p. 142-143; Hullen, p. 13].
Observations have shown that the problem of LP formation is relevant not only in school education, but is more deeply manifested at the level of higher professional education. According to developmental psychology, it is believed that it is during this age period that the final formation of the personality takes place and the foundations of professional communication are laid. Y.N. Ivanova notes that the student's speech development is manifested in the improvement of the language as a whole and comprehensive (linguistic, mental, social) mastery of situational forms of speech [Ivanova, p. 39]. So, we agree with the opinion of A.K. Krupchenko that «the process of teaching a professional language involves a targeted impact on the thesaurus of students, updating aspects of a professional language personality: at the zero level - the formation of automated skills for using standard constructions; on the first - the problem of expanding the text by topics and semantic fields, as well as compressing the original text to a «problem»; on the second - the correspondence of linguistic means to the communicative conditions of their use (the use in a specific speech situation of the appropriate vocabulary and style of communication, understandable to all its participants)» [Krupchenko, p. 11].
In this regard, our research is aimed at studying educational programs in the areas of training «Russian Philology» and «Russian Language and Literature» at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University in a multi-level credit system of education at the university (bachelor's, master's, doctoral studies). To achieve the goal of the study - to outline the ways of forming a professional LP of a teacher-philologist - it is supposed to implement an integrated approach to the facet of its special training in LP through in-depth, systematic work on the formation of its thesaurus (special dictionary) in the dynamics of learning. The description of the results of our own research is beyond the scope of this article.
Thus, the study of scientific literature devoted to the definition of the category of linguistic personality allows us to say the following:
1) LP is a complex multi-level, multi-aspect, multi-faceted system that includes different components (levels, parts, layers, faces, components, etc.);
2) due to the complexity and ambiguity of this phenomenon, research is envisaged both within the framework of a single science (for example, linguistics, linguo-culturology or linguo-sociology), and from the standpoint of integrating scientific areas;
3) due to the fact that in modern science there is no unity in understanding and in the exact definition of the concept of LP and its boundaries, further research by foreign and domestic scientists in this area is necessary;
4) studies of bi- and multilingual LP are relevant in the conditions of a multilingual space (Russia, Kazakhstan, etc.);
5) the study of LP is a promising direction in connection with modern trends in the world: a unified policy in the field of education in Europe and the CIS, the creation of a single economic space, the existence of a single information space, etc.
References
1. Agibalov A.K. Dis. Cand. Philol. scinces. SPb., 1995. 196 p.
2. Balli Sh. YAzyk i zhizn' / per. from fr.; entry Art. V.G. Gaka. Ed. 2nd. M.: Editorial URSS, 2009.
3. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Izbrannyye trudy po obshchemu yazykoznaniyu: v 2 t. M.: Publishing house Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1963.Vol. 2.
4. Benveniste E. Obshchaya lingvistika / ed., Entry. Art. and comments. Yu.S. Stepanov. M.: «Progress», 1974.
5. Bogin G.I. Model' yazykovoy lichnosti v eyo otnoshenyi k raznovidnost'yam tekstov. dis. ... Doct. philol. sciences. Leningrad. 1984.
6. Budagov R.A. Chelovek i yego yazyk (Za-metki ob otnoshenii lyudey k literaturnomu yazyku)// Questions of linguistics. 1970. No. 6. P. 3-14.
7. Chudinov V.A. Problema yazykovogo sub'yekta // [http://chudinov.ru/problema-yazyikovogosubekta/ [appeal date: 09/30/2021].
8. Demyankov V.Z. Kognitivnaya lingvistika kak raznovidnost' interpretiruyushchego podkhoda // Questions of linguistics. 1994. No. 4. P. 17-33.
9. Frolov N.K. Izbrannye raboty po yazykoznaniyu. P. 1. Antroponimika. Russkyi yazyk I kultura rechi. T'umen': Izd-vo T'um. un-ta, 2005. 509 p.
10. Gainullina N.I. Yazykovaya lichnost' Petra Velikogo. Almaty. Kazakh university, 2002. 141 p.
11. Hullen, W. English Dictionaries 800-1700: The Topical Tradition/W. Hullen. Oxford Claredon Press, UK, 2006. 525 p.
12. Humboldt von V. Izbrannyye trudy po yazykoznaniyu / per. with him. M.: JSC IG «Progress», 2000.
13. Ivanova Yu. N. Problemy formirovaniya yazykovoi lichnosti studentov v protsesse obucheniya // Pedagogical Journal. 2013 №1-2. P. 32-47.
14. Ilyasova R. S. Language personality in the context of interaction of language and culture // Scientific Almanac of the Black Sea countries. 2018. Part 16. №4. Pp. 32-36.
15. Karasik V.I. YAzykovyye klyuchi. Volgograd: Paradigm, 2007.
16. Karasik V.I. YAzykovoy krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs.Volgograd: Change, 2002.
17. Karaulov Yu.N. Russkyy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnost'. Ed. 7th. M.: Publishing house LKI, 2010. 264 p.
18. Krupchenko A.K. Stanovleniye profes-sional'noy lingvodidaktiki kak teoretiko-metodo-logicheskaya problema v professionalem obra-zovaniy. dis. ... doc. ped. scinces. M., 2007. 406 p.
19. Kubryakova E.S. Evolyutsiya lingvistiche skikh idey vo vtoroy polovine XX veka (opyt pa radig-mal'nogo analiza) // Language and science of the late XX century / ed. Yu.S. Stepanov. Moscow: Ed. Center of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 1995, pp. 144-238.
20. Leont'ev A.A. Osnovy psiholingvistiki. M.: 2003. 287 p.
21. Paul G. Printsipy istorii yazyka / per. with it.; entry Art. S. D. Katsnelson. M.: Publishing house of foreign. lit., 1960.
22. Popova O.V. Yazykovaya lichnost' Ivana Groznogo (na materiale delovykh poslaniy). avtoref. dis. kand. philol. scinces. Omsk, 2004. 20 p.
23. Potebnya A.A. Polnoye sobraniye trudov: mysl' i yazyk. M.: Publishing house «Labyrinthe», 1999.
24. Sepir E. Izbrannyye trudy po yazykozna niyu i kul'turologii. Moscow: Ed. gr. «Progress»: Univers, 1993.
25. Sterkenburg, P.V. Onomasiological Specifications and a Concise History of Onomasiological Dictionaries, A Practical Guide to Lexicography P.V. Sterkenburg John Benjamin's Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Pp. 142-143.
26. Veroyatnostnoye prognozirovaniye rechi/ed. R.M. Frumkina. M., 1971. 230 p.
27. Vinogradov V.V. O yazyke hudozhestvennoy prozy. M.: 1980. 315 p.
28. Vorozhbitova A.A. Lingvoritorika: samo-proektirovaniye sil'noy yazykovoy lichnosti (skhemy, tablitsy, algoritmy, nastroi): uchebno-metdicheskoye posobiye. / ed. A.A. Vorozhbitova, M.: Ai Pi Ar Mediya, 2020. 103 p.
29. Vorozhbitova A.A. Filolog-issledovatel' kak professional'naya yazykovaya lichnost': lingvori-toricheskiy podkhod: uchebnoye posobiye /ed. A.A. Vorozhbitova. Sochi. 2019. 176 p.
30. Weisgerber J.L. Rodnoy yazyk i formirova niye dukha / per. with him. Ed. 2nd, rev. and add. M. : Editorial URSS, 2004.
