Linguistic markers of auto- and heterostereotypes in a literary text

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Linguistic markers of auto- and heterostereotypes in a literary text

O.A. Voytseva, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Chair of General and Slavic Linguistics Department Odesa I.I. Mechnikov National University

Abstract

The article deals with ethnic anthropological stereotypes. They constitute the most important part of the worldview in a literary work. The subject of the investigation is linguistic markers of auto- and heterostereotypes in the discourse of the first part of the novel „Glory and praise” („Slawa i chwala”) by an outstanding Polish writer Yaroslav Ivashkevich. The aim is to find linguistic markers of ethnic stereotypes of the Poles and other ethnic groups in the literary text. Among the ethnic stereotypes we distinguish between auto- and heterostereotypes. The former are steady and emotionally coloured opinions, judgements, ascribed to a certain ethnic group by its representatives. The latter are ascribed to some ethnic group by a diferent one. Forming auto- and heterostereotypes occurs on a general basis: the emphasis is placed on most prominent national traits, on the contrast between „a native” and „a stranger”.

The image of „a stranger” is perceived through the prism of one's own system of values. The inherent attribute of the ethnic stereotype is evaluation which firstly exists in linguistic markers at the lexical level. Valuing is also present in the pragmatic lexical component of ethnonyms (Polak, Ukrainiec, Rosjanin, Niemiec, Francuz, Zyd, Austriak), anthroponyms (Chopin, Sienkiewicz, Blok, Lermontow, Majakowski), toponyms (Polska, Rosja, Warszawa, Odessa, Kijow, Winnica, Charkow, Moskwa, Petersburg, Piotrogrod, Wieden, Magdeburg, Paryz). Secondly, at the morphological level evaluation is performed by personal pronouns (my / wy, nasza / wasza; „Kto nie z nami, ten przeciw nam”), qualitative adjectives (najwybitniejszy, wielki, piqkny, przystojny).

Thirdly, at the syntactic level evaluation is presented by attributive adjectival phrases polski, ukrainski, rosy ski, niemiecki, austriacki, zydowski, francuski („Tw arz miat rzeczywiscie bardzo polskq”; nasze ukrainskie ziemianstwo; wymienit rosyjskie nazwisko; oficer ow niemieckich; piechota austriacka; parq zydowskich furmanek; francuskiego zapachu). And forthly, at the stylistic level stereotypes and peculiarities of characters' speech behaviour are described („galicyjskie naleciatosci panskiej mowy”; ,fti, ni - odpari Lewko - nam treba wertatysia...”; „ Jozia uderzytpiqkny akcentfrancuski”).

Conclusion. In the literary discourse under analysis ethnic stereotypes reflect the nation's attitude to their activity, to the surroundings. They contain various information on the typical traits of the Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Germans, Jews, Americans, the French and other nationalities. The perspective of the further investigation is to analyse stereotypes of different ethnic groups in literary and spoken texts.

Key words: literary discourse, linguistic personology, ethnic stereotype, auto- and heterostereotype, linguistic markers, Yaroslav Ivashkevich.

Анотація

Статтю присвячено етнічним антропостереотипам, що утворюють один із найважливіших фрагментів мовної картини світу людини в художньому тексті. Предметом аналізу було відображення авто- і гетеростереотипів у тексті першого тому роману „Слава і хвала” видатного польського письменника Ярослава Івашкевича. Мета дослідження полягала в аналізі мовних маркерів етностереотипів поляків та інших етносів. Серед етностереотипів виділено автостереотипи - стійкі та емоційно забарвлені судження, оцінки про представників своєї етнічної спільноти, і гетеростереотипи - стійкі й емоційно забарвлені судження, оцінки однієї етнічної спільноти по відношенню до іншої.

При формуванні авто- і гетеростереотипів найбільшу увагу привернуто до типових властивостей національного характеру, на зіставлення „свого” з „чужим” крізь призму власної системи цінностей. Атрибутом етностереотипу є оцінність, присутня, по-перше, в лексичних мовних маркерах, у прагматичній складовій етнонімів (Polak, Ukrainiec, Rosjanin, Niemiec, Francuz, Zyd, Austriak), антропонімів (Chopin, Sienkiewicz, Blok, Lermontow, Majakowski), топонімів (Polska, Rosja, Warszawa, Odessa, Kijцw, Winnica, Charkow, Moskwa, Petersburg, Piotrogrod, Wiedeh, Magdeburg, Paryz). Подруге, оцінку на морфологічному рівні містять особові займенники (my / wy, nasza / wasza; „Kto nie z nami, ten przeciw nam"), якісні прикметники (najwybitniejszy, wielki, piqkny, przystojny). По-третє, оцінний компонент виявляється на синтаксичному рівні в атрибутивних сполуках з прикметниками polski, ukraihski, rosyjski, niemiecki, austriacki, zydowski, francuski („Twarz mial rzeczywiscie bardzo polskq'nasze ukraihskie ziemiahstwo; wymienil rosyjskie nazwisko; oficerцw niemieckich; piechota austriacka; parq zydowskich furmanek; francuskiego zapachu); по-четверте, емоційно-оцінне ставлення втілено на стилістичному рівні в описах стереотипів і особливостей мовної поведінки героїв твору („galicyjskie nalecialoscipahskiej mowy”; „Ni, ni - odpari Lewko - nam treba wertatysia...”; ,Jцzia uderzyl piqkny akcent francuski”). Етностереотипні уявлення надають можливості письменнику висловити ставлення польського народу до себе й інших людей, до своєї діяльності і навколишніх предметів, вони містять інформацію про риси національного характеру поляків, їх світогляд та уявлення про інші народи.

Ключові слова: художній дискурс, лінгвоперсонологія, етностереотип, авто - і гетеростереотип, мовні маркери, Ярослав Івашкевич.

anthropological stereotype ivashkevich literary

Перелік скорочень

ЛКС - Польсько-український лінгвокраїнознавчий словник. = Ро№о-икга^кі slowшk lmgworeaHoznawczy / Упорядники: О. Войцева, Г. Касім, Є. Ковалевський. К.: ТОВ НТВ „Інтерсервіс”, 2018. 192 с.

ПО - Психология общения. Энциклопедический словарь / под общ. ред. А.А. Бодалева. М.: Изд-во „Когито-Центр”, 2011.

СЛТ - Жеребило Т.В. Словарь лингвистических терминов. Изд. 5-е, исп. и доп. Назрань: Изд- во „Пилигрим”. 2010. 486 с.

ЭПС - Этнопсихологический словарь / под ред. Крысько. М.: Изд-во Моск. психол.-соц. ин-та, 1999.

Этнология - Тавадов Г.Т. Этнология. Современный словарь -справочник. М.: АНО „Диалог культур”, 2007.

Slawa i chwala - Iwaszkiewicz J. Slawa i chwala. Warszawa: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1969. T. 1. 541 s.

WSJP - Wielki slownik jзzyka polskiego, red. naukowy Piotr Zmigrodzki.

Theoretical and methodological bases of the anthropocentric principle in modern linguistics are „an anthropological language approach, in accordance with which an adequate study of a language should be conducted in close connection with a human's consciousness and thinking, their cultural and spiritual life. This approach places first of all a person, a language personality in the centre of language study and all its aspects for searching compelling analogies between the structure of a language and the structure of other cultural aspects” [9, c. 49]. Being a new independent direction in linguistics, the linguistic personology (scientific works by Yu. Apresian, J. Bartminski, G. Boghin, S. Vorkachev, N. Golev, E. Ivantsova, V. Karasik, E. Kubriakova, V. Neroznak, N. Saikova et al.) conducts a comprehensive study into „the language state (individuation) both of a private human (idiolectic) and a multihuman (polylectic) linguistic personality - a nation” [1, c. 164]. In the linguistic personology a language personality is studied not only synchronically, but diachronically as well, which „makes it possible to identify developmental tendencies and to predict behavioural models of an individual depending on their social status ” [10, c. 161].

The structure of the language personality „has its beginning beyond an everyday language, when intellectual forces come into play, and the first level of its (the structure) study is to identify, to determine hierarchy of meanings and values, of its worldview, its thesaurus” [6, c. 36]. By Yu. Karaulov, the structure consists of three main organisational levels: verbal-semantic, cognitive-linguistic and motivational [ibid., c. 37-38].

Personological semantics comprises ethnic stereotypes. The term ' stereotype' was introduced into science by a famous American journalist Walter Lippmann (in his book „Public opinion”, 1922). W. Lippmann believes that stereotypes „represent well-organized, more or less non-conflicting worldview. Our habits, tastes, abilities, pleasures and hopes comfortably co-exist in it. The stereotyped view of the world may be incomplete, but it is a possible worldview we are adapted to. In it people and objects take their intended places and act in a predictable way. We feel at home in it. We fit into it. We are its part” [7, c. 108]. The stereotype is determined in a human's mind as an image (unilateral, partial and sketchy) of some phenomenon and at the same time as an opinion about the image learnt from the surroundings even before the object itself is experienced.

The American logician Hilary Putnam noted that stereotypes are reflected in the language continuum. His works inspired scientists to further research into stereotypes in a language [8]. The most known is Jerzy Bartminski's understanding of the stereotype „as subjective comprehension of an object that comprises both desriptive and evaluating attribute and as the result of the reality interpretation within social cognitive models” [2, c. 189]. J. Bartminski draws attention to subjects that can have certain stereotypes (what is said and who says it): „The Poles believe typical (in their opinion) French people to be witty”. He introduces the concept of profiling: an image (as it is), a model (as it should be), mythological notions (as they can be), ideological notions (as they can and should be). The notion of a stereotype is closely connected with the denotion of the word, therefore it is reflected in the language. The bearers of the stereotypes are members of a speech community, i.e. „a group of people that share the same speech characteristics and differ from other speech communities by an inventory of language units. The speech community is neutral to the amount and extralinguistic basis of the unity” [СЛТ, с. 481]. A speech community comprises language communities („a group of people that communicate using the same or different languages at the level of social, economical, political and cultural relationships; and the language distribution boundaries do not coincide with political ones”). Stereotypes are part of naive view of the world of the speech community. Their study in works of Polish scientists (J. Anusiewicz, J. Bartminski, A. Levitski, V. Pisarek, K. Pisarkova, S. Skorupka, V. Khlebda et al.) proved that the knowledge of the world, the values can unite and separate the society, while they form the symbols of culture, nation and time.

The ethnic stereotype (< англ. ethnic stereotypes, гр. iOvoq „народ, плем'я”, oispsOQ „твердий”, тйтюд „відбиток”) is a kind of anthropological stereotypes („standard notion that belongs to people, namely to a particular community, about people that are members of this or another part of community”) [3, с. 217]. The ethnic stereotype represents „a schematic image of its own or another's ethnic community, reflecting simplified (sometimes unilateral and inaccurate) knowledge of psychological peculiarities and behaviour of a particular nation's representatives” [ЭПС, с. 343]. The ethnic stereotypes were analysed by E. Berezovich, L. Krysin, V. Plungian, E. Rakhilina, I. Kobozeva. The most essential properties of stereotypes are: emotionalism, evaluation, steadiness, stability, rigidness (harshness, toughness), congruence among the members of an ethnic group [ПО, с. 517-518]. The Polish language reflects notions of its own and other people in the form of cultural constants („dominant cultural themes, substratum of practicing a certain cultural type”) [5, c. 20] or the „national world constants” [4, с. 8].

There is differentiation between autostereotypes and heterostereotypes. The former are steady and emotionally coloured opinions, judgements, evaluations, that are attributed to a certain ethnic group and fixed, for example, in the Polish phraseology: Co Polak - to szlachcic. Co Polak - to rycerz. Jak ryba bez wody, tak Polak bez urz§du zyc nie moze. Gdzie dwоch Polakow, tam trzy zdania. UPolaka co w sercu, to i na j§zyku. Mqdry Polak po szkodzie. Polak jak malpa, co ujrzy, to chce miec. Autostereotypes mainly have positive assessments as „a nation conscious of themselves tend to perceive themselves, their interests, needs and demands as preferable, undoubted, legitimate and natural” [Этнология, с. 19]. They are more precisely differentiated and form a certain complex of cultural constants.

Heterostereotypes are also steady and emotionally coloured opinions, judgements, evaluations, but they are attributed to a certain ethnic group by a different one. These stereotypes can have a both positive and negative assessment, which is partially explained by the historical experience of interacting peoples: Jak swiat swiatem, nie b§dzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem. Przy Polaku i Niemiec si§ pozywi, przy Niemcu ani pies. Kochajmy si§ jak bracia, liczmy si§ jak Zydzi. Jak bieda, to do Zyda. Zydowi chrzczonemu i wilkowi chowanemu nie wierz. Stoi jak Zyd za Zydem. Zyd Zydowi pej sow nie urwie. Z Ruskim gadaj, a w zanadrzu kamien trzymaj. Uparty jak Moskal. Co Francuz wymysli, to Polak polubi. Co Wloch to doktor, co Niemiec to kupiec, co Francuz to dworak, co Polak to hetman.

The subject of the research is linguistic markers of ethnic anthropological stereotypes in the first part of the novel „Glory and Praise” („Slawa i chwala”) by the Polish writer Yaroslav Ivashkevich. The aim of the article is to analyse auto- and heterostereotypes in the literary text.

The central idea of Y. Ivashkevich's novel is to show the Polish people's lives, who dwell outside or in their country, in view of the historical events developing in Ukraine (Odesa, Kyiv), in Poland (Warsaw, Krakow, Zakopane), in France (Paris), in

Germany (Heidelberg) from 1914 till 1930. In the opinion of Henrik Bereza, the characters of the novel „Glory and Praise” („Slawa i chwala”) constitute a collective portrait of the author [11, c. 14]. The steady predominance of the ethnic stereotype of a Pole in Y. Ivashkevich's novel is self-identification, language categorisation, religion and traditions. G. Gachev emphasises that „Poland has well-developed history and sagas, and what to be proud of - traditions, feats, and models. Knighthood - yet again, it was developed among the Polish gentry, loyalty - devotion, honour and pride...” [4, c. 43].

Narrating about lives of the Royskis, Myshinskis, Shillers, Tarlos, Golombeks, Bilinskis, Veviurskis, Sobanskis and others, the author indicates that they belong to different social strata. Among them are aristocrats (Marysia Bylinska, Janusz Myszynski), the gentry (Ewelina Royska, Jozef „Jozio” Royski), as well as workers, peasants and servants. These social strata keep their nominal boundaries, which is accentuated by Y. Veviurski when talking with Y. Myshinski: Jakiz pan hrabia dla mnie brat? Hrabia i juz! ... pan jest jasnie pan, a ja robociarz. Nie ma mi§dzy nami zgody i nie moze bye” [Slawa i chwala, s. 393]. The Polish are mainly characterised by stereotypes, as follows: „Zamachy si? raczej udaj^, a nas juz ten Wojciechowski czy z Witosem czy ze Skarzynskim piekielnie znudzil. Polacy lubiq odmian§” [Slawa i chwala, s. 428]; „Male kajuty... kazda ozdobiona olbrzymimi papierowymi i slomianymi ozdobami ... - Polak to zawsze skqdzis slomy wytrzasnie. Gdzie mozna dostac w Paryzu slomy? A oni dostali.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 418].

Besides Poles, in the novel there are a great many of other nationalities, belonging to different speech and language communities: Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Austrians, Italians, Germans, Americans, English and French people, and others. These ethnic groups are presented in the text by heterostereotypes: „ ... pierwszym naszym wrogiem sq Niemcy.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 246]; „Czym to pod Rybnikiem do Wlochow, makaroniarzy, psiakrew, nie strzelal?” [Slawa i chwala, s. 375]; „Ja juz wol§ tego Zyda - mowil Wiewiorski - skor§ drze, ale wiem, po co...” [Slawa i chwala, s. 500]; „Przed Anglikiem trzeba bylo jeszcze bardziej chowae jak przed Niemcem" [Slawa i chwala, s. 345]; „Zblizala si? epoka pokoju brzeskiego i Francuzom ziemia pallia si§ pod nogami..." [Slawa i chwala, s.119]; „Byly to pierwsze lata gremialnego najazdu Amerykanow na Paryz." [Slawa i chwala, s. 404].

Forming auto- and heterostereotypes occurs on a general basis. However, the focus is on most significant outer and inner peculiarities of the nationalities, on the contrast between „a native" and „a stranger", where the image of „a stranger" is perceived through the Polish ehtnicity system of values: „Ale naprawd? tak nie mozna bylo siedziec w tej Odessie. Trzeba bylo cos robic. ... my musimy cos robic dla Polski" [Slawa i chwala, s. 157]; Ja zawsze jestem radPolaka widziec" [Slawa i chwala, s. 394].

The author emphasises the Polish origin of the main characters: „A ten (Walerek Royski) - coz to zapolskie dziecko." [Slawa i chwala, s. 23]; „ ... mimo calej mojej polskosci bardzo malo bylem przygotowany na Warszaw?" [Slawa i chwala, s. 215]; „Ojczyzna nasza za plecami, na polnocy. ... Dlaczego nie mozemy zejsc tam? - Janusz wyci^gn^l przed siebie r?k? i zakreslil szeroki luk. - Bo jestesmy Polakami. Widzisz, taka nam juz wypadla dola." [Slawa i chwala, s. 268].

At the lexical level auto- and heterostereotypes in the discourse of „Glory and Praise" are presented by ethnonyms, anthroponyms and toponyms. With the help of these nominative units the author depicts positive traits of the Polish, „of the natives", towards whom he has mainly positive feelings. At the same time he assesses other ethnicities: „Polak „osoba narodowosci polskiej; zaleznie od okolicznosci uzycia takze osoba maj^ca obywatelstwo polskie lub zamieszkala w Polsce" (6 words), plural Polacy (12 lexemes), Polka „kobieta narodowosci polskiej" (2 words), Lach przest. Polak", plural Lachy (1 lexeme) [WSJP; .HKC, c. 142-143]. A cognitive macrocomponent of ethnonyms is manifested in statements, where these lexemes have a hypernymic character: „Ojciec Tarlow, Polak z pochodzenia..." [Slawa i chwala, s. 29]; „Jozio mial do czynienia z zolnierzami armii carskiej... tamto byli przewaznie Rosjanie, gdy on bylPolakiem."" [Slawa i chwala, s. 144].

In the novel there are also observed the following ethnonyms: Austriak, plural Austriacy („Austriakфw trzymano dlugi czas na bacznosc.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 166]), Zyd / Zydфwka, plural Zydzi („Janusz z Joziem wpakowali siз do jakiegos bogatego Zyda...” [Slawa i chwala, s. 156]; „Panie, Zydzi to potзga. Czy pan o tym nie wie?” [Slawa i chwala, s. 311]), Ukraincy, Rosjanin, plural Rosjanie, Anglik / Angielka („Wychowala mnie w pustym dworze stara, zimna Angielka” [Slawa i chwala, s. 35]), Niemiec, plural Niemcy („Baba z reszt^ byla m^dra, oczytana i nienawidziia Niemcфw za potзgз.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 222]), Francuz, plural Francuzi, Amerykanin, plural Amerykanie, Hiszpanka, Greczynka. They are used to name people after their ethnic character and to make a judgement of a particular nationality.

The pragmatic constituent of the ethnonym semantics comprises additional associative, emotional and evaluative semantic attributes. These reflect collective notions about the nation and about the values of the Poles and other peoples: „ ... ci Polacy sq jak pies na plocie, utrzymac siз nie mogq, a nie wiedzq, na ktфrq stronз spasc” [Slawa i chwala, s. 389]; „ - Polacy i Rosjanie razem? Nie, to niemozliwie - nagle sprzeciwil siз Janusz.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 42]; „Niemiec mocny, jucha... - im siз tego wiзcej uskubie, tym lepiej. Janek siз zdobyl na odwagз. - Dla kogo lepiej? ... - Lepiej, powiedziala z wolna - dla nas, Polakфw.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 307]; „Z Francuzami zyc mozna? - Pewnie. ... Tylko to taki drobny narфd, panie hrabia, rзkз to tylko tak w kieszeni trzyma, jakoby tam wзza hodowal - i j edzenie maj q podle.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 344]; (Edgar Szyller): „ ... nie umiem wysun^c siз na pierwszy plan, przepychac siз lokciami do pierwszego rzзdu, a nie bardzo nawet mam z czym, bo pani wie, ze Amerykanie mojego towaru to nie bardzo...” [Slawa i chwala, s. 503].

Ethnic stereotypes that refer to the value system are embodied in the anthroponyms that a name famous individual in order to reconstruct a reader's certain notions about the possible appearance of a Pole. The evaluating objects here are different peculiarities of anatomy, physical movements and gait. The anthroponyms (Rej, Mickiewicz, Sienkiewicz, Nalkowska, Zapolska, Chopin, Paderewski, Moniuszko, Haller, Pilsudski, Jaracz, Osterwa etc.) are used in the nominative function to name the Poles („ ... z daleka obserwowali wielkich aktorow, jak Jaracz lub Osterwa...") [Slawa i chwala, s. 196], they are also used to symbolically characterise a Pole: „Na tle ciemniej^cego letniego nieba twarz Edgara wyrazna, wybitna, z jasnymi oczami, ktore nawet w cieniu blyszczaly, przypominajqca nieco twarz Chopina zportretu Delacroix...''" [Slawa i chwala, s. 46]; „Stanislaw Hube mial w tej epoce lat okolo pi?cdziesi?ciu, byl to nieduzy, bardzo pi?kny m?zczyzn a, z rysow i postawy, a takze i z zamilowania do kobiet przypominajqcy krola Stasia..."" [Slawa i chwala, s. 495].

In the discourse of „Glory and Praise" toponyms represent the Polish people and Poland, as well as other nations (Polska, Warszawa, Krakow, Lodz, Rzeszow, Zakopane, Siedlce, Sandomierz, Lowicz, Nieborow, Wisla; Odessa, Kijow, Winnica, Charkow, Wapniarka; Moskwa, Petersburg, Piotrogrod; Paryz, Sekwana; Wieden; Nowy Jork, Chicago, Boston; Berlin, Heidelberg etc.): „Ja mysl?, ze Polska ma w tej chwili swoje wlasne zadania. ... Jesli Niemcy upadn^, czeka nas piekielnie trudne zadanie spojenia w jednq calosc trzech zaborow."" [Slawa i chwala, s. 133]; „fochodzg z Polski, to wystarcza. Polska to dla nich (Francuzow) kraj Cyganow, niedzwiedzi, kawioru, sniegu, czy ja wiem co? Jak si? pochodzi z Polski, to jest juz tak zle, ze poza tym nie pytajq."" [Slawa i chwala, s. 421]; (Jasia Wiewiorska) „ ... bardzo si§ cieszyla, ze wrocila do Polski." [Slawa i chwala, s. 494]; „ - Nie ma co, trzeba nam do Warszawy. Kieliszek si? usmiechn^l. - Do Warszawy jak do Warszawy, ale do Polski"" [Slawa i chwala, s. 174]; „ ...(ojciec Royskiej) zawsze wzdychal do rodzinnych Siedlec. Mowil, ze Siedlce to najladniejsze miasto w Europie"" [Slawa i chwala, s. 178].

At the morphological level of the text the opposition „a native" / „a stranger", which is connected with the position of a Pole in the society, in the environment, is performed by: personal pronouns my / wy, nasza / wasza („dla nas, Polakow"; „uwazam waszq rewolucj? za waszq wlasn^ spraw?"; „trzeba nam do Warszawy"; „To nie jest nasza ojczyzna i nie dla nas sloneczne wino poludnia"; „Wsz?dzie slad naszej kultury - powiedzial Jozio"), demonstrative pronouns to, ta, tu („Jozio jakos nie mial zaufania do tej jednostki polskiej”; „Dla mnie tu trochз obco - westchn^l Kieliszek - za szeroko. U nas pod Turkiem tez s^ ladne ziemie.”), possessive pronouns (swфj) („To juz ostanie, co pani bзdzie miala ze swoich Moliniec.”), evaluative adjectives wybitniejszy, wielki, mistrzowski („wybitniejszych dziel literatury polskiej”; „wielkich aktorow, jak Jaracz lub Osterwa”), comparative adverbs bardzo, zawsze, duzo, zbyt („slyszalo siз duzo polskiego jзzyka”; „Polska kuchnia zawsze najlepsza”), adverbs of place and direction tam („Walerek jest tam, u tych”), quantifiers, expressing quantitative semantics, zawsze, kazdy, nigdy, intensifying particles (coz) etc.

The ethnic stereotypical semantics is fixed at the syntactic level in the attributive phrases, in which the most frequent lexemes are adjectives derived from toponyms: polski, warszawski (polski jзzyk, polskie pochodzenie, polskie zwyciзstwo, polska hrabina; warszawski pociqg, warszawska polszczyzna, rodzina warszawska, plotki warszawskie), ukrainski (na ukrainskim dworze, ukrainskich chlopow, ukrainskiej synowej), austriacki (austriaccy zolnierze, austriackie karabiny), rosyjski (rosyjskie nazwisko, frontach rosyjskich), zydowski (zydowskich furmanek), angielski (angielskiego szewiotu, angielskiego projektu), niemiecki (szkoly niemieckiej, niemieckim wagonem), francuski (francuskiego zapachu, lekcja francuskiego), also in expressions of comparison („chleb, proszз pana, jak polski”).

The stylistic level is performed in the characters' statements by common and regional language peculiarities, cf.: „Kozak nachylil siз w siodle i wyciqgnql w stronз Janusza jakis przedmiot. - Pani zabula - powiedzial.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 72]; „ - Mays, ma chиre - ksiзzna wzruszyla ramionami.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 227]; „ -I tak siз stanie. Samo prijdiot - powiedzial Janusz.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 388]; „(Gol^bek) Byl smieszny ze swoim typowym nadwislanskim akcentem.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 108]. And the author assesses the phonetic norms of the Polish language, paying attention of the reader to the fact that in Ukraine communicating in Polish was restricted to the family or to the Polish society: „ ... przeciez on (Jozio) tak malo ma do czynienia z polskim jзzykiem.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 11]; „ ... (Jozio) nasladuje panski sposob mowienia, nawet pewne galicyjskie naleciaiosci panskiej mowy” [Slawa i chwala, s.12]; „Janek drzemal na poly ... ale sluchal tego opowiadania i glosu Wladka (Sobanskiego) i jego mowy zabawnej, skazonej nieco i archaicznej, jaka w tych zasciankach byia przechowywana wraz z dawnymi zwyczajami[Slawa i chwala, s. 148]. The Polish language of the novel characters is influenced by the Russian (Ariadna i Woiodia Tario) and French (Elzbieta Szyllerowna, hrabina Roza de Caserta) languages: „Spychala spozieral na ni^ (na Elzbiet? Szyllerown?) z l?kiem. Uderzala go obcosc jej twarzy, obcosc akcentu, lekka trudnosc w wymaw ianiu „r”, a naw et niekto rych polskich zbiegow spoigiosek. Elzbieta cz§sto przerzucaia si§ na j§zyk francuski, podobnie do niekto rych w ielkich pan kresowych, ktore zachowaiy ten osiemnastowieczny zwyczaj.” [Slawa i chwala, s. 18]; „Roza (hrabina de Caserta) mowiia w dziwny sposob akcentujqc sylaby i wyrazy, tak, ze chociaz mowiia po polsku, ogolna melodia zdania brzmiaia, jak gdyby mowiia w obcym jgzyku” [Slawa i chwala, s. 400]. In such cases Y. Ivashkevich imitates speech peculiarities of the characters, determining stereotypes of their speech behaviour through linguistic markers.

Conclusion. The bearers of auto- and heterostereotypes in the discourse of „Glory and Praise” („Slawa i chwala”) by Y. Ivashkevich are members of the speech community and therefore its language communities. The background knowledge is superimposed onto the common cultural notions and onto the language. The ethnic cultural stereotypes are performed at the lexical, morphological, syntactic and stylistic levels. The attribute of naming is evaluation. The author's collective notions of the Poles' and other ethnicities' attitude to their own activity, to themselves and other nations, to the surroundings contain various autostereotypical information about the positive traits of the Poles (responsibility, patriotism, self-respect, pride, punctuality, fearlessness, bravery, kindness, artistry, politeness, good manners), and contain disapproval of some negative features (indifference, egoism, arrogance). Heterostereotypes assess representatives of a certain ethnic group (the Russians, Germans, Jews, and the French) towards the Poles. The perspective is to further analyse the verbal semantic level of ethnic stereotypes of different ethnic groups in literary and spoken texts.

Література

1. Базылев В.Н. Лингвистическая персонология: Ирина Хакамада (к определению статуса дисциплины) // Известия УрГПУ. Лингвистика. Вып. 15. Екатеринбург, 2005. С. 163-167.

2. Бартминьский Е. Базовые стереотипы и их профилирование (на мат. польского языка) // Стереотипы в языке, коммуникации и культуре: сб. статей / сост. Л.Л. Фёдорова. М.: Изд. центр РГГУ, 2009. С. 11-21.

3. Башкова И.В. Теоретические основания русской семантической персонологии: объект и метод: Дис. ... докт. филол. н. Красноярск, 2018. 217с.

4. Гачев Г.Д. Национальные образы мира. Соседи России. Польша, Литва, Эстония. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2003. 384 с.

5. Жебраускас А.Л. Понятие культурных констант и поиски ориентиров постсовременности // Изв. рос. пед. ун-та им. А.И. Герцена. Аспирантские тетради, 2006. № 3 (20). С. 18-21.

6. Караулов Ю.Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. Изд. 7 -е. М.: Изд-во ЛКИ, 2010. 264 с.

7. Липпман Уолтер. Общественное мнение. Пер. с англ. Т.В. Барчуновой. М.: Институт Фонда „Общественное мнение”, 2004. 384 с.

8. Патнэм X. Значение „значения”: пер. с англ. // Философия сознания. М.: ДИК, 1999 (1975). № 151.С. 164-235.

9. Пятаева Н.В. Антропоцентрический принцип современного языкознания и понятия картины мира // Филологический класс, 2004. № 12. С. 47-54.

10. Салахова А.Г. Лингвоперсонологический подход в исследовании профессиональной языковой личности // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. Тамбов, 2015. № 8 (50): в 3ч. Ч. II. C. 159-162.

11. Щепотьев С. Маленькие рыцари большой литературы: размышления о польской литературе. Санкт-Петербург, Реноме, 2010. 146 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru