Conceptualization of ideas about Russian culture and the culture of Russia in the Russian language

Full Text

Introduction

Issues of linguistic and cultural identity and related problems of acculturation and inculturation are key in the modern paradigm of the humanities. The problems of studying personality in culture and language acquired particular significance in the humanitarian paradigm of the so-called “cognitive revolution”, which took shape in the late 1980s and continues to this day. Cognitive research applied to the interpretation of language and personality provided for re-conceptualization of structuralism and generativism as well as behavioral and social sciences (Cienki, 2007; Fauconnier, 1994; Lakoff, 2004), which led to the elaboration of the concept of linguistic identity (“linguistic personality”, see: Karaulov, 2010).

One of the key factors in the formation of identity is the social discursive field, which produces meanings underlying linguistic and cultural identities. This discursive field constitutes a structure with at least two dimensions. The first one is determined by the time factor and located on the diachronic scale. Two main types of structures are distinguished here: achronic structures, which include virtually all types of traditional culture (fairy tales, myths, folk traditions and customs, etc.), and historical structures associated with the valorization of certain events and facts, for example, the Great Patriotic war or space exploration¹. The second dimension is related to the degree of generalization and the nature of the field components. These can be structures of existential importance, i.e. the most general and deep structures associated with philosophical paradigms, for example, the ideas of universal progress or equality of all peoples, or a sense of nature, or contextual and situational structures. Situational parameters are specific events or phenomena, created at a certain moment or by certain individuals (for example, the character of Cheburashka as a social phenomenon dating back to the Soviet era but relaunched in 2022, or the work of Pyrokinesis as an individual phenomenon). Contextual structures, in our opinion, include phenomena whose frequency is governed by discursive practices (for example, certain artists and other cultural figures who receive more attention in the school curriculum ‒ Shishkin, Aivazovsky, Yesenin, Tchaikovsky).

Such understanding of the identity structure and its conceptual field was developed in the works of Russian linguists (Boldyrev, 2021; Karaulov, 2010; Krasnykh, 2016, etc.). The deep layers of discursive formations, which are not obvious, seem to be the most interesting and significant as they date back to distant eras. Two concepts of nation and national culture, which are key for interpreting the structure of the fields of Russian culture and the culture of the Russian Federation, include the first construing the nation through folk culture and its attributes (Baggioni, 1997; Potebnya, 1976), and the second based on the French understanding of nation as a voluntary community of fellow citizens (Renan, 1886; Rivarol, 2013). The latter concept is characterized by an emphasis on the ideas of progress, the priority of bourgeois culture, and indifference to folk types of culture associated with the traditional way of life. Both concepts were inherited and paradoxically combined in the national ideology and language policy of the USSR and later that of the Russian Federation: on the one hand, both declare respect towards and interest in traditional culture, but on the other ‒ prioritize construction of a single nation. The ideology of the USSR expressed this duality in the formula of “culture, national in form and socialist in content”, which implied the creation of a single Soviet nation (Bromley, 1991; Lamazhaa, 2010; Chudinov, 2001). Now these ideologies are intertwined in discourses about the institutions of Russian citizenship and the Russian culture.

It is not easy to determine the essence of Russian culture as it is part of the modernity, has been state and nation-forming throughout the history of the Russian state, the USSR and the Russian Federation, and is at the same time nourished by traditional ideas and values. The following questions raise:

1. What is the reason for understanding Russian culture as a culture of an exclusively traditional, “folklore” type? Does this understanding really prevail?
2. Are there any differences in ideas about Russian culture and the culture of Russia (Russian Federation)? Are all modern forms of culture associated by Russians with the Russian Federation?
3. What is the cognitive and verbal field “Culture” in everyday consciousness, and does it include such phenomena as, for example, space exploration, industry, education?

Our preliminary hypothesis implies that Russian culture (RC) and the culture of the Russian Federation (CRF) are conceptualized in different ways: the first prevails in traditional and folklorized ideas, the second is perceived as modern and industrial. This problem is important both from a scientific and social point of view, since the reduction of culture (not only Russian, but also any other) exclusively to traditional forms leads to folklorization and overlooks entire layers associated with modern forms.

In theoretical terms, the study fits into the cognitive paradigm and uses the frame theory (Cienki, 2007; Fillmore, 1982; Demyankov, 1996) and the cognitive model (Cienki, 2007; Lakoff, 2004) (for general review of these works, see: Skrebtsova, 2018; Cienki, 2016; Rakhilina, 2016). Cognitive matrices were applied to analyzing the fields of “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”, where “culture” itself is presented as a cognitive matrix (Boldyrev, 2021: 57‒67). The research is also based on the study by N.V. Ufimtseva and O.V. Balyasnikova devoted to the problem of “places of memory of linguistic consciousness associated with key images of national culture” (2021) as well as that of M. Sanchez Puig (2021), where an associative network of the concept of Motherland in Russian and Spanish is built on the basis of an associative experiment. The study of I.A. Bubnova (2021) was used to identify the values of the generation Z.

The aim of the study is to build a cognitive matrix and frame for the fields of “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”.

Methods and materials

The following methods were used for the purposes of the study:

‒ quantitative and qualitative analysis of the corpora with representations in the form of associative nominations and mini essays, including structural and grammatical analysis, lexical and semantic analysis, clustering, visualization of verbalized cognitive fields “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”, comparative analysis, narrative analysis (using mainly the categorial model).

The empirical part of the study was conducted in April 2022 and was based on mini essays on a given topic and lists of representations. The study involved 68 Russian students of the Faculty of Philology of the RUDN University, aged 18 to 20, representing the following regions: Moscow, St. Petersburg; North Ossetia ‒ Alania, Buryatia, Ingushetia, Crimea, Tuva, Lugansk Republics; Yamalo-Nenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrugs; Far Eastern Federal District; Belgorod, Irkutsk, Kirov, Lipetsk, Moscow, Omsk, Pskov, Rostov, Samara, Smolensk, Tyumen, Chelyabinsk regions; Krasnoyarsk, Stavropol, Khabarovsk Territories.

The respondents were divided into four groups: students of the first (16 people) and the second (14 people) groups were asked to write short essays on the topic “What is Russian culture for me” and “What is the culture of the Russian Federation for me” respectively (method of mini essays); students of the third (28 people) and fourth (25 people) groups were asked to give at least 10 words or phrases that, in their opinion, best characterize Russian culture and the culture of the Russian Federation respectively (method of the list of representations). Up to 15 minutes were given to each group to write the text in the form of an essay or a list of representations, since the response was expected not so much the first reactions (association technique), but rather the reactions supported by reflections. There were no other restrictions. The received essays and the list of representations made up the general body of the study, where four subcorpuses were identified (Table 1). The total volume of subcorpuses for essays was 16,000, or 2,334 words. The total volume of subcorpuses according to the list of representations was 6,700 characters, or 874 words.

Table 1. List of subcorpuses

Subcorpus title	Description
SC_1_Rep_RC	Subcorpus 1 based on the list of representations of Russian culture
SC_2_Rep_CRF	Subcorpus 2 based on the list of cultural representations of the Russian Federation
SC_3_Ess_RC	Subcorpus 3 on the material of essays on Russian culture
ПК_4_Ess_CRF	Subcorpus 4 on the material of essays on the culture of the Russian Federation

The combination of different methods is explained by the fact that the list of representations allows you to get the maximum number of nominal and adjective syntagmas necessary to build a cognitive matrix or frame “Russian culture”/“Culture of Russia”, but this method hardly allows you to analyze the emotional involvement of the respondent into the subject of research, and absolutely does not allow to reveal the dynamic aspect of the “culture” field, for example, connection between modernity and past, the orientation of culture towards past or future, the vector of its development (in the views of the respondents). A similar analysis can be carried out on the basis of essays by examining the types of adjectives and verbs.

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the obtained data was carried out in several stages. Quantitative analysis was carried out using two automatic text analysis tools: the Voyant tools² program, which allows you to work with frequency, correlations, compatibility, and also visualize data. To count the number of nouns, adjectives and verbs, we used the capabilities of the platform of the Kazan Federal University “RuLingva”³. Lemmatization and the necessary markup were done manually.

The data of the quantitative analysis of the material enabled us to proceed to the qualitative analysis. Based on the thematic analysis of nouns, the frames “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”⁴ were built. The analysis of adjectives identified the parameters of an objective/subjective assessment of RC and CRF. The analysis of verbs was carried out according to semantic and formal parameters (Active/Passive Voice and degrees of predication abstractness).

Results

On analyzing all four subcorpuses, we built a cognitive matrix of the fields “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”, compared their structures and components, and answered the questions that we raised at the beginning of our research.

In both cases, the field of culture includes ordinary and high spheres, but in the case of RC, the ordinary is more detailed. In general, all the slots of the cognitive matrix of the RC are filled more fully than the slots of the CRF. This indicates a greater involvement of the respondents into the field of the Russian culture.

The CRF has a dynamic nature and is oriented both towards the past and the future. Respondents emphasized the importance of historical traditions and the continuity of cultural practices. Russian culture is perceived as more static, which is confirmed by predominantly descriptive constructions and nominative sentences characterizing it.

At the same time, as the analysis of adjectives shows, Russian culture is definitely native, “own” culture. Adjectives with emotive connotation are used only in relation to RC. The CRF field is construed through the prism of other cultures.

The volume of the concept of “culture” certainly includes high forms of art, folk art and traditions, everyday practices and artifacts. Such significant areas as education and industry remain outside the fields of culture, and science and sports are located on their periphery. The highest value and the core of culture is the person as its creator. The main tools of culture formation include the language and discursive practices.

Discussion

Lexical clouds of the fields “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”

The results of the analysis of noun frequency in the corpora of mini essays about Russian culture and the culture of the Russian Federation is shown in semantic clouds in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

A comparative analysis of two corpora data shows the fundamental thematic and semantic proximity of the RC and CRF fields. In both fields, the main category is the person/people, however, in the field of culture of the Russian Federation, its significance is higher. Everything related to culture as art (literature, painting, music) has a higher status. Russian literature constitutes the core of the “art” category. Tradition plays an equally important role in both fields. However, there are significant differences between the field of CRF and RC. In the field of RC, lexemes associated with metaphysical categories such as spirit, soul and units close to them are well represented and significant: mentality, character, behavior; in the field of CRF, their frequency is much lower.

Figure 1. Cloud of nouns (by frequency in SC_3_Ess_RC) in the “Russian culture” field

Figure 2. Cloud of nouns (by frequency in SC_4_Ess_CRF) in “The culture of the Russian Federation” field

The CRF field is dynamic, it has its past, history, and it is evolving. The concepts of evolvement and development and related concepts have the same rank in this field as the concept of literature. The RC field is achronic. There is time in it, but it is rather a non-historical time ‒ a receptacle of eternal values. The hypothesis about the dynamic nature of the CRF field and the achronic type of the RC field is also confirmed by the cloud of verb forms of the studied subcorpuses (SC_3_RC and SC_4_CRF) shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3. Cloud of verb forms  (by frequency in SC_3_Ess_RC) in the “Russian culture” field

Figure 4. Cloud of verb forms (by frequency in SC_4_Ess_CRF) in “The culture of the Russian Federation” field

The most frequent verbs in the field of RC are those of descriptive type, which are actually used as linking verbs: to be associated, to be reflected, to become and can (in such constructions as it can be and more rarely I can), which is not surprising, since the type of texts itself is descriptive. In the subcorpus SC_4_ess_CRF, the most frequent verb is to make. In the essays of the majority of respondents, the culture of the Russian Federation is presented not as a product that is consumed, but as a result of activity, work and creation: the culture of the Russian Federation is everything that is made by human hands, by the hands of people, by Russian people, in Ancient Rus', in Russia and in the USSR, for their descendants. In the field of culture of the Russian Federation, the history and continuity of generations is clearly traced: “culture is everything that has been formed over a long time”, “everyone participates in its formation”, “culture is a combination of the present and the past”, “rethinking the experience of predecessors” for the sake of “future generations”.

The conclusions about the presentation of the culture of the Russian Federation as historical and dynamic, and Russian culture as achronic to a greater extent, are confirmed by the results of the analysis of verbal indices (by subcorpuses of mini essays) on the RuLingva platform, which are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Verbal parameters of subcorpuses SC_3_Ess_RC and SC_4_Ess_СRF

Parameter value	SC_3_Ess_RC	SC_4_Ess_CRF
Verbs (total): ‒ present tense ‒ past tense ‒ future tense	107 51 26 2	143 68 49 3
Average of verbs for one sentence	1.16	1.83
Correlation of verbs to nouns	0.27	0.33

The volumes of the two corpora being comparable, the proportion of verbs is higher in the texts about the culture of the Russian Federation, which allows us to speak about its more dynamic nature. Texts about Russian culture are nominative and more static. The ratio of verbs and nouns in the texts about the RC is 0.27, while in the texts about the CRF it is 0.33. The number of verbs in the past tense in the texts about CRF exceeds the same indicator in the texts about CRF by 1.9 times. This indicates that the respondents see the CRF as immersed in time, historical, but, at the same time, modern culture (the indicator of verbs in the present tense remains high). Let us recall that the tasks for the two groups of respondents were formulated in the same way: “What is Russian culture for me” and “What is the culture of the Russian Federation for me” respectively. The fact that 73% of the sentences in the texts of the RC corpus consists of nouns but hardly contain any verbs (Fields. Wild bushes. Forests. Pushkin's fairy tales. These are Krylov's fables. This is a strong spirit.) testifies to the greater descriptiveness of the concept of Russian culture. The share of such sentences in PC_4_Soch_СRF is 48%.

Analysis of adjectives allows us to identify subjective assessments of the field of culture by the respondents, that is, its axiological aspect (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 5. Cloud of adjectives (by frequency in SC_3_Ess_RC) in the “Russian culture” field

Figure 6. Cloud of adjectives (by frequency in SC_4_Ess_CRF) in “The culture of the Russian Federation” field

Both the RC and the CRF are characterized as large. The CRF is characterized as multifaceted, great, rich and huge, while CR ‒ as strong and wide. The diversity of the culture of the Russian Federation is emphasized, while for the Russian culture it is its internal strength and power. Both cultures are modern, but Russian culture is also classical. However, the adjective “classical” has never been used in mini essays in relation to the culture of the Russian Federation. The ideas of the nation are connected with the Russian culture. This culture is national and multinational: “Russian culture is multifaceted for me. It is possible that this is due to the peculiarities of the mentality as well as to the fact that our country is multinational. Therefore, different cultures are mixed like smoothies in a blender”. CRF is perceived as diverse, but united: multifaceted. Adjectives with emotional connotation were revealed only in the field of Russian culture: sad, sincere, beloved, unshakable, restrained, compassionate, gloomy, etc. There are no such adjectives in the CRF field. “Native” was not used in respect of the CRF field. Apparently, this indicates a greater appropriation and emotional perception of the Russian culture by the respondents. It is no coincidence that the adjective “other” is often used in the CRF field, which is evaluated through the prism of the other and compared with it. The index of the adjective/noun ratio (calculated on the RuLingva platform) is 0.42 for the Russian culture, and 0.34 for the culture of the Russian Federation. This shows more individual perception of the Russian culture.

Cognitive matrix of the fields “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation”

Taking into account the data of qualitative and quantitative analyses of the vocabulary of mini essays (when defining Russian culture, the most frequent lemmas turned out to be human being ‒ 9, tradition(s) ‒ 9, Russia ‒ 10.8, literature ‒ 10.8, life ‒ 10.8; for the culture of Russia: human being ‒ 9, made ‒ 9.3, Russian ‒ 13.3, Russia ‒ 9, people ‒ 14.6), it was necessary to test the hypothesis on the material of representations. An analysis of these data showed that the most frequent lemmas defining Russian culture are literature ‒ 22.21⁵, folk ‒ 20.4, songs ‒ 15.3, Pushkin ‒ 13.6, nature ‒ 11,9; while for the culture of the Russian Federation the respondents opted for ballet ‒ 29, Pushkin ‒ 23.2, theater ‒ 23.3, music/arts/field/national ‒ 17.4).

We combined and ranked all the nominations from the subcorpuses, which allowed us to build a cognitive matrix (Table 3) with the following frame slots: space/time (homeland, history), nature (landscape, climate, flora and fauna), environment (sights, city, life ‒ home, clothes, food), people (social groups, figures, personalities), activities (traditions, celebrations and holidays, work) and separately art (literature, music, dance, theater, painting, applied arts), religion, language, mentality. The main blocks turned out to be similar in all cases, although with somewhat varying content.

Sports (figure skating, hockey) is represented in the cognitive field of Russian culture in contrast to the culture of the Russian Federation, but it does not mention museums, cinema, modern street art, war. In both fields, science (scientists, Lomonosov, a nuclear reactor), power (president, Lenin) are barely represented, while space exploration is not represented at all. As expected, national symbols are mentioned in the field of the culture of the Russian Federation: Motherland, the anthem, the flag (the tricolor and the laws are also encountered in the field of Russian culture), certain cities and places (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Red Square, the Kremlin, the Hermitage). The Russian culture is associated with the homeland (home country), place of birth, home. People of different social groups and their descriptions are more diversely represented (Family [friendly, large], People [Russian, friendly, kind, sensitive, who are always ready to help], People [simple], Girls [beautiful, well-groomed (even when they go to buy bread)], Men, Women, Gangsters, Bogatyrs, Peasants, Kuban Cossacks, Slavs).

Table 3. Cognitive matrix

RUSSIAN CULTURE				CULTURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
			LANGUAGE
Proverbs and sayings, artistic works of poets and writers					Modern literary Russian language, word art, proverbs, speech culture
			PEOPLE
Family [friendly, large], people [Russian, friendly, kind, sensitive, always ready to help], nation [simple], girls [beautiful, well-kept (even if they went to buy bread)], men, women, gangsters, bogatyrs, peasants, Kuban Cossacks, Slavs, expression wrinkles, red cheeks, people, personality (human behaviour, fast walk, gloomy faces)					Family, people, nations, society, person (each individual and their view), rich men on Helen Wagen, poor drinking homeless men, cultural figures, clergymen, clerks
Writers: Dostoevsky, Krylov. Poets (Russian): Pushkin, Lermontov, Boris Ryzhy, *Lomonosov, Mayakovsky, Yesenin					Writers, authors (many Russian, domestic), prose writers, Dostoevsky, Sholokhov, Tolstoy, Astafyev, Bunin, Chekhov. Poets (Russian) Vysotsky, Pushkin
Artists: Aivazovsky, Vasnetsov, Vrubel, Kramskoy, Rublev, Shishkin, Repin, Shishkin and Savitsky					Aivazovsky, Surikov
			Glinka, Tchaikovsky		Composers, musicians, singers: Glinka, Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Andrey Pyrokinesis
			Lenin		President, Lenin
			Lomonosov		Scientists, psychologists, Leontiev
			Russian figure skaters		Bezrukov Sergey, Yaga
			SPACE AND TIME
		Motherland, place where I was born, country [great], hearth mediaspace			Motherland, Russification; victory, coat of arms, anthem, flag tricolor, human priorities and rights, laws
			Area [large]. Expanses [Russian]		Space. Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Red Square, the Kremlin, Europe
History [long], Russian Empire, vintage, nineties [harsh], history (our; long and intense, of Russian state), memory					History, past, *War. The totality of present and past, since the times of Rus’, the experience of predecessors, Tsar Russia, the USSR, next generation, long time
			NATURE
Scenery, forest [birch, measureless], taiga, river (small river), field [wheat, rye]					Field, river, nature (picturesque)
The Sun, sunrise, winter [severe], snow, weather [gloomy, changeable], a lark’s song					Sunset (scarlet), winters (cold dark)
Rye [a rye field] birch, wheat [a wheat field], poplars [chopped down], flowers [wild], woods, birch forest, berry bushes (wild)					Camomile, oak
Bear (surprisingly), lark, chanterelles and boars					Horses, livestock, bears
			LIFE ENVIRONMENT
Sights, landmarks, roads, colourful cemetery on the roadside, church [half-ruined, on the hill], temples [beautiful], domes, abandoned buildings, trains					Churches, architectural monuments. Golden Ring
Cities [beautiful] children’s playgrounds, Troika underground card, labyrinth of frame-panel houses, multi-storeyed houses, universities [the best], houses type “Khrushchev”, underground, Moscow region houses (wooden), village (Russian), hamlets, the smell of the village (tasty)					Multi-storeyed houses, village, desert road, old frame-panel houses, houses type “Khrushchev”, benches on children’s playground (made by uncle Vanya), market, roosters in the morning
Home, icon corner, the hearth, sauna, carpet [on the wall], ceilings [suspended], toys [wooden], samovar, tablecloth [lacy], balalaika, kettle, everyday life, izbas					Everything made by people in Russia. Samovar, izba, carpet on the wall, TV (with a kinescope)
Pancakes [crepes], dishes, vodka, caviar, Easter kulich, salad Olivier, salad with mayonnaise, moonshine, tea, eggs [painted], pelmeni, kholodets, shchi					Pancakes, *cuisine, dishes [national], borshch, vodka
Clothes (national winter). Boot [in the mud], valenki, kokoshnik, dress [national], shawl [Orenburg], shirts, sarafan, outfits [bright], embroidery, shawls (woollen red)					Dresses (national) clothes (simple): Shawl, sarafan, outfits women’s Slavic, Kokoshniks, shawls (on the head in cold weather), dresses, Adidas tracksuit
			ACTIVITIES
	Customs (family). Traditions				Traditions, customs
					War
Feasts [frequent]: Ivan Kupala, Maslenitsa (favourite), Easter Holidays, Festivals, Slavic witchcraft					Feasts Maslenitsa, Christmas
			Labour		Labour
			Creativity		Creativity
Hockey, Russian figure skaters, sport, sport achievements, figure skating					Nuclear power reactor
			Fashion
			ART
Literature [classic], Prose, folk fairy tales, folklore, Prose, artistic works (of Russian poets and writers, fairy tales, literary monuments, Writers [Dostoevsky], Poets [Boris Ryzhy, Lermontov, *Lomonosov, Mayakovsky, Pushkin], Krylov’s fables, fairy tale Frog Princess					Art. Literature [classic], Poetry, Folklore, Books,  “War and Peace” by L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Sholokhov. Writers’ works, myth, chronicles, fairy tales (Russian), national folklore
Music. Songs (folk), chastushkas, instruments [string/folk], Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Swan Lake					Music, Opera, Choir. balalaika Russian composers (Tchaikovsky, Glinka, Prokofiev)
					Museums (lots of), Hermitage, Tank Museum
					Modern street art
Dance, ballet, dances, “Barynya”, round dances					Ballet, Russian folk dances
			Theatre		Theatre, Big Theatre, cinema [Soviet], Sergey Bezrukov, cartoons [Soviet], cinema, The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath
Painting, artists (Aivazovsky, Vasnetsov, Vrubel, Kramskoy, Rublev, Shishkin)					Paintings, posters. Aivazovsky
Gzhel, matreshka					Gzhel, matreshka, Cheburashka souvenirs
					Masterpieces; everything hand-made in Russia, videos of marriages, photos of babies
			RELIGION
Religion, belief, Christianity, Orthodox Christianity Orthodox temples, Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, feasts (religious): Maslenitsa, Easter, churches					Religion, Orthodox Christianity, prayers, churches, Maslenitsa, Christmas, Easter
			MENTHALITY
Hospitality, spirituality, fortified spirit, anger, sincerity, eloquence, love, imperfectness, unconquerable will, unpredictable nature, loneliness, courage, openness in communication, resistance, honour, generosity. Hospitality, honour (our), melancholy, power of spirit, patience (infernal), mentality, spirit (national), soul					Glory, honour, hospitality, warmth, wisdom, patriotism, humility, tolerance. Politeness, good breeding, obedience, honesty. Worldview, opinions, manners, Russian spirit

The representativeness of the blocks of the culture cognitive field in both cases vary from very specific objects and people (“War and Peace” by L. Tolstoy, Sergey Bezrukov) to abstract notions (art, labour, Christianity, etc.). The cognitive field of CRF has more generic notions than specific ones.

Although the national aspect of culture is mentioned (associative nomination folk is the second most frequent adjective in both cognitive fields ‒ 17%, coming only after literature ‒ 18%), it is more relevant for the field of Russian culture, non-folklore nominations still prevail, cf.: folk tales are mentioned 3 times, while classical literature – 12; matryoshka is mentioned 5 times, while artists (for example, Aivazovsky) – 4; folklore – 3 times, while writers (for example, Pushkin) ‒ 8, etc.

The expression of respondents' ideas about the non-material component of the field of culture, namely, the qualities and properties associated with Russian culture and the culture of the Russian Federation deserves special attention. Nominations with positive connotation prevail in both groups: 33 nouns (with 1 repetition in both groups) and 4 nominative phrases. Only 4 nominations can be classified as negative, albeit sometimes ambiguously: anger, loneliness, imperfectness, unpredictable nature. This indicates an extremely positive attitude of young people towards Russian culture and the culture of the Russian Federation. We see a similar assessment in mini essays: emotionality and positive evaluation are manifested in adverbs (amazingly, extremely, incredibly) and adjectives (important, famous, the most beautiful, cute, beautiful, beloved, rich, amazing; great, picturesque, attractive, invaluable, genuine, etc.)

If we compare the contents of the cognitive fields built on the basis of representations (subcorpuses 1 and 2) and mini essays (subcorpuses 3 and 4), writers and scientists are less represented in the RC field (while literature is still mentioned); new blocks such as “media space”, “fashion”, “education” appear. Singers, clergymen, psychologists and clerks appear in the RFC cognitive field; the role of man as culture creator is emphasized (“everything in Russia is made by people: from masterpieces to photographs of babies”).

The RC conceptual field based on representations contains a lot of evaluative and specific adjectives, as well as localizers (lacy tablecloth, large friendly family, carpet on the wall), which indicates a higher degree of appropriation of the Russian culture by the respondents. The analysis of the essays confirms this hypothesis: the mini essays about the Russian culture comprise vocabulary of sense perception: vision (red (corner, shawl), bright), touch (delicious (smell of bread)), emotion (sad, dreary).

Narrative analysis of mini essays according to categorial-formal model revealed similarities and differences in text deployment to stimuli Russian culture, Culture of the Russian Federation. The analysis shows that the authors of the essays of both groups emphasize their individual opinion (it seems to me; for me it means; I mean; everything that I associate with; for me; my country’s culture is first and foremost) and the personal involvement of the respondents, which is confirmed by the use of personal and possessive 1st person pronouns I/we ‒ 23‒26/ 5‒2 and my/ours ‒ 3‒7/8‒8.

The essays emphasize the complexity of the concept under consideration (many different spheres form it; an immense culture that combines many cultures at once), which is expressed in attributive constructions with adjectives (multifaceted, multinational, complex, (extremely) diverse, etc.), including those with opposite connotations (Russian culture is something beautiful, bright, but at the same time sad and dreary; it is the dullness of ordinary days, but sincere joy and happiness on holidays, especially religious ones). The complexity of defining the phenomenon of culture is also revealed through indefinite and demonstrative pronouns (this is something beautiful, this is something that is imprinted, something that can affect (RC); this is something great, cannot be reduced to something specific, single, standard (CRF)).

In the mini essays, Russian culture appears dynamic and embracing the past, the present and the future (RC: ...not only the famous Russian classical literature... the literature of the new time, reinvigorated and touching upon new themes; modern creativity; CRF: this is a combination of the present and the past; it is of great value for present and future generations), which is also reflected in attributive relations (eternal, new, first, modern, old, older; long, historical, present and past, early, modern).

Conclusion

Our study has shown that the cognitive fields of “Russian culture” and “The culture of the Russian Federation” are quite close. Neither Russian culture, nor the culture of the Russian Federation are considered as traditional cultures of the folklore type. These are modern cultures, combining both traditional forms and stereotypes of behavior and modern practices. The field of Russian culture is represented as more appropriated, affectively connotated but at the same time more achronic and descriptive. The cultural field of the Russian Federation has historical depth and dynamism. In the future, the study can be extrapolated to respondents of other age and social groups. A structural and sematic map of the field of culture using mathematical methods of analysis in order to calculate the coefficient of significance of the cognitive matrix components can be also built.

 

_{¹ Examples from the collected research material.}

_{² Voyant Tools. Retrieved from https://voyant-tools.org}

_{³ RuLingva. NIL ITUT KFU. Retrieved from https://rulingva.kpfu.ru}

_{⁴ A fragment of the frame on the material of the representation corpus and without materials of the essay corpus was published in the article (Moskvicheva et al., 2022).}

_{⁵ Relative word frequency (per million words of the corpus) for each text, obtained with Voyant tools.}

About the authors

Svetlana A. Moskvitcheva

RUDN University

Email: moskvitcheva-sa@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8047-7030

PhD in Philology, Director of the Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and Migration, Associate Professor of the General and Russian Linguistics Department, Faculty of Philology

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Oksana I. Aleksandrova

RUDN University

Author for correspondence.
Email: alexandrova-oi@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7246-4109

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the General and Russian Linguistics Department, Faculty of Philology

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Natalia S. Bruffaerts

Saint-Louis University - Brussels

Email: natalia.bruffaerts@usaintlouis.be
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1621-9413

Doctor in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian language, Marie Haps Faculty of Translation and Interpretation

5 Arlon St, Ixelles, Brussels, 1050, Kingdom of Belgium

References

Supplementary files