The value-conceptual component of the linguistic and cultural type "classic writer" (based on the material of the student survey)

Bralnin Dmitrii Olegovich ORCID: 0009-0000-1777-8132 Lecturer, Department of Russian Philology, Syktyvkar State University named after Pitirim Sorokin 55 Oktyabrsky str., Syktyvkar, Komi Republic, 167001, Russia bralnin00@mail.ru

A wide range of modern researchers addresses the issue of the essence of classical in various fields of knowledge. In 2009, an interdisciplinary monograph was published, which explores the phenomenon of classics in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in the field of mass culture ^[1]. In several articles of this monograph, three simultaneous conditions of "classics" are highlighted: works are called classical in science, are studied in schools and universities and are used in new scientific research ^{[2, p. 6]}. The same signs are listed in a separate article by A.V. Poletaev, included in the described monograph ^{[3, p. 13]}. Then the information about these signs is duplicated in the monograph "Classical Heritage" ^{[4, p. 27]}.

One of the main features of classical works in various sciences is their relevance and relevance, which can be expressed to varying degrees ^{[4, p. 20],[4, p. 28]}. The following quote is indicative: "Classics is a list of relatively old works and their authors who laid the foundations of modern science and at the same time retain (at least partially) their relevance" ^{[4, p. 21]}. We emphasize that science at the present stage, in the era of the development of the Internet and a large number of published comments, interpretations of physical and chemical laws, historical and political phenomena, etc., in many situations no longer requires recourse to the classical primary source of the idea. As S. N. Zenkin notes, classics are not the most widely read, but the most commented on by authors, and their modern status is such that geniuses are honored from afar and do not directly contact their work ^{[5, pp. 281-282]}.

The situation is different with classical literature. Firstly, this term can refer to various periods: antiquity, literature of the periods of the existence of the "classical language", "classical" literature of Modern times and European national literatures ^{[4, p. 13]}, i.e. the concept becomes variable and acquires fuzzy boundaries ^{[4, p. 20]}. Secondly, the pattern deduced by S. N. Zenkin about the lack of need for contact with the classics ceases to work here. It is in constant work with direct texts that the reader reveals the secrets of the creative component of the writer. Of particular importance in the analysis of classical literature is the opinion prevailing before the XVI century that his works must necessarily remain from the classics, the study of which helps many generations to include themselves in a wide cultural context, to discover a lot of new things in the heritage of great people ^{[5, pp. 281-282]}.

In the science of the new digital age, the question of the main characteristics of the classics remains open. In general, the distinctive criteria of the classic can be represented as follows: exemplary, the presence of deep ideas, scientific novelty, perfection of form, scientific content, the unique creative gift of the author, concise and clear formulas of reality, "cultural resonance" (consonance with the "spirit of the times" and increased impact), "plasticity of the text" (long-term relevance and new understanding) ^[4].

To what extent these generalized features of the classics correspond to the spirit of the time, it was decided to check by referring to the linguistic and cultural type "classic writer". The term "linguistic and cultural type", which means a recognizable image of representatives of a certain culture, was introduced into scientific circulation by V. I. Karasik in 2005 ^{[6, p. 8]}. There are three components in the structure of the linguistic and cultural type: conceptual, figurative and value ^{[7, pp. 88-89]}, of which the last component attracted the most attention in this study.

O. A. Dmitrieva suggests in her article ^[8] a classification of values associated with the third designated component of the linguistic and cultural type: moral (interests of society, elaborated norms of society), utilitarian (priorities of the material and ideal for the individual), supermoral (the highest symbolic differences of society, taken on faith), sub-utilitarian (vital human needs).

The value component of the linguistic and cultural type of the "classic writer" was chosen as fundamental in this article, since the phenomenon of classics itself can be considered as a supermoral value that is gradually disappearing from our lives.

According to the Levada Center yearbooks ^[9], a fifth of the respondents often or constantly read fiction (2012 – 20%; 2014 – 20%; 2016 – 24%). As can be seen from the statistics on the last three surveys on this topic, the percentage of regular readers is growing. At the same time, it should be clarified that the development of e-books and audiobooks makes its own adjustments to the reading process. Levada Center surveys have also been conducted on this topic. Respondents still prefer paper books. (2012 – 49%; 2016 – 44%) or paper and e-books together (2012 – 20%; 2016 – 22%). In April 2015, a separate survey was conducted on the frequency of reading books on an electronic device. The results were deplorable (74% of respondents had not read a single e-book in a year; 86% had never listened to an audiobook in a year). At the same time, fiction is read quite a bit on the Internet (2008 – 3%; 2012 – 14%; 2016 – 10%). The classics are read even less by the respondents, and their percentage in the circle of respondents' reading decreases: the calculation includes the aggregate of percentages of reading Russian, Soviet and foreign classics (2009 – 22%; 2011 – 13%; further surveys on this topic were not conducted).

In the period from October to December 2023, a massive online remote survey of first-year full-time and part-time students of SSU was conducted. Pitirim Sorokin (Syktyvkar) in order to identify the key (including value) characteristics of the linguistic and cultural type of the "classic writer".

Many researchers have turned to the questionnaire as a way of describing the linguistic and cultural type ^[10-13] and others, which proves the relevance of using such a method of collecting information.

For example, when describing the type of rocker M. B. Voroshilova refers to the conceptual and associative features of the type, and then to their comparison. Some associative features are also considered in this study: assessment and perception of type, creativity ^[11].

Great similarities were found with the survey by E. M. Dubrovskaya ^[12], namely: respondents in both studies of different genders and ages, conceptual, categorical features of the type in the minds of native speakers are revealed, dominant features and distinctive features of the functioning of the type are studied, both linguistic and cultural types (a bohemian man and a classic writer) belong to the field of art and they are engaged in creativity to one degree or another.

At the moment, the acceptance of responses to the questionnaire on the essence of the linguistic and cultural type of "classic writer" has been completed, 315 people have completed the survey. In the article, we present some of the results of the survey from October to the end of November (120 people), which seemed to us the most interesting from the point of view of the purpose of our study.

Out of 19 questions offered to students, 5 of the most significant ones were selected for understanding the value-conceptual essence of the linguistic and cultural type of the "classic writer": "Who is this?", "How many of them exist?", "What distinguishes them from ordinary writers?", "Definitions characterizing classic writers", "Name a few classic ones works of art".

The greatest difficulty was caused by the question of the number of classic writers, which has three possible answers: there are many of them, there are few of them, this is a narrow group of personalities. More than half of the respondents (66) believe that there are a lot of classic writers, in second place is the opinion that classics are a narrow group of personalities (48). 6 people are sure that there are very few classics. It is difficult to say what the respondents put into such answers: how many are considered very small, large or average, how many people belong to a narrow group of personalities. However, this result shows that 95% of the respondents, when talking about classic writers, do not represent individuals, but entire groups assembled from the masters of the word.

Our research has shown that students consider such creations as "War and Peace" (64), "Crime and Punishment" (39), "Eugene Onegin" (29), "Fathers and Children" (27), "The Captain's Daughter" (22), "The most famous classical worksDead Souls" (21), "The Master and Margarita" (20), "Woe from Wit" (19), "Hero of Our Time" (15), "Oblomov" (12).

This list of works is traditionally recognized as classical, which is confirmed by its inclusion in the school curriculum, by referring to its interpretation by philologists in the framework of term papers, theses, dissertations, monographs and other studies on Russian literature, that is, all three main criteria for classics and stated at the beginning of the article are met.

Evidence that this list of Russian classics is still not outdated can be found in other studies of the XXI century.

According to a study conducted by VTSIOM ^[14] on Russians' favorite writers, genre preferences and regularity of reading "Book Lover 2019", fiction is read by more than 50% of respondents. Respondents advised reading Russian classics, and the results of the survey reflect the five named names of classic writers: A. Pushkin, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, M. Lermontov and M. Bulgakov, the works of each of whom are represented in our list of classical works. At the same time, 35% of the respondents could not recommend a specific author.

There are also studies from the early 2020s concerning the inclusion of classics in the reading circle of young people.

In 2020, an online corpus of amateur works based on Russian classics was studied ^[15]. The authors studied such a genre of fan fiction literature as crossovers, in which universes of different classical works are combined. If the creators of crossovers often turn to this or that work to connect with others, this confirms its relevance in the modern world. The leaders in the number of crossovers were such works as "The Master and Margarita" (189), "Eugene Onegin" (111), "Woe from Wit" (66), "Hero of Our Time" (58), "Crime and Punishment" (56), "War and Peace" (38), "Fathers and Children" (34).

Of particular interest are several works related to the value of classics for Moscow students ^{[16, 17]}. A study conducted at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics ^[17] showed the value of classical literature for students from Moscow, since 48% of respondents (more than two thousand people were interviewed in total) read classics.

In the work of A. V. Gromova ^[16], a list of six main Russian classical works preferred by students of the Moscow State Pedagogical University was compiled. So, the top six included "War and Peace", "Crime and Punishment", "The Master and Margarita", "Fathers and Children", "Dead Souls" and "Eugene Onegin". When comparing these conclusions with ours, it turned out that all these six works are present in our top ten most popular and three of them (1st, 2nd and 4th places) coincide even in their positions in the ratings.

Let's turn to the remaining three questions (the essence of the linguistic and cultural type of the "classic writer", its differences and related definitions).

For the convenience of the analysis, a popularity rating of the answers to these three questions was compiled, since some of the respondents' answers were duplicated to several questions.

It was found out that in questions that can be answered by both conceptual and value characteristics of the type, respondents prefer the latter – among the ten most popular there are only two conceptual features: intelligent (17) and gifted (15).

Among the value characteristics of the "classic writer" type, such answers prevail as the author of masterpieces (43), an outstanding writer (32), the author of reference / exemplary works (27), famous (17), relevant (14), great (10), raises global problems (10), the author of classics (9).

Let's compare these reactions with research data and associative dictionaries.

A. V. Poletaev notes that such concepts as "outstanding", "major", "famous" scientist, "founder", "founder" can be used as synonyms for "classic" ^{[3, p. 12],[4, p. 27]}. Much of this is also true for the results obtained in our study.

The words "classic" were not found in the "Russian Associative Dictionary" ^[18], but two related concepts were found – "writer" and "classic". 103 responses to the stimulus were given to the word "writer", of which 4 refusals were recorded. The reactions closest to the "classic writer" are such as "famous" (5), "great" (4), "good" (4), Pushkin (2), "Russian" (2). The remaining reactions are isolated. However, among them there are those who are close to our research: genius, Gogol, intellectual, interesting, classic, L. Tolstoy, laureate, Lermontov, venerable, thinker, Sholokhov. The listed reactions from races that are not represented in the top ten most popular in our study are also isolated.

The "classic" stimulus has 105 reactions, of which there were 0 failures. Among the reactions to this stimulus that were close to the classic writer were: "novel" (4), "literature" (1). "Classic" in RAS was found only in a reverse search, i.e. this word became a reaction to other stimuli. There were 14 total stimuli that caused this reaction: Dostoevsky (2), Chekhov (2), the wrestler (1), the great (1), Goethe (1), Gogol (1), zhivoy (1), Lermontov (1), Marx (1), the first grader (1), the writer (1) and Chernyshevsky (1). The respondents in our study did not give reactions "fighter", "Marx", "first grader", which is due to the narrow specifics of the questionnaire, where it was the classic writer who was considered, and not the classic as a whole.

In the direct Dictionary of Associative Norms of the Russian Language by A. A. Leontiev ^[19], "classics" was not found again, as were the words "writer", "classic", etc. However, in the reverse dictionary, the words "classics" (2) and "classical" (9) became a reaction to the stimulus "literature". The word "writer" and its word forms also became a reaction to various stimuli: literature (9), Russian (2), children's (3), paper (4), surname (1).

As can be seen from the analyzed material, the respondents' answers to the questionnaire on the linguistic and cultural type largely reflect the trends of associative dictionaries and other studies in terms of the value-conceptual component of the classic writer.

Many of the reactions to the stimulus of the "classic writer" or the lexemes found in them (masterpieces, topical, global problems, eternal problems, classics) reflect supermoral values, which confirms the thesis about the supreme nature of classics and the chosen, genius of its creators.