Theoretical aspects of studying linguocultural types: Two decades of development

The article is a comprehensive theoretical and methodological study of the evolution of the linguacultural type concept in linguistics for the period from 2002 to 2025. The work systematizes and critically rethinks the basic approaches to the study of linguacultural types developed by V. I. Karasik and his scientific school, as well as subsequent theoretical developments in this area. Particular attention is paid to the conceptualization of hybrid types: to describe them we propose new theoretical categories – socio-ideological syncretism and polythematicity. Based on the analysis of the “classic writer” type, we demonstrate the limitations of traditional classification schemes and substantiate the need to develop more complex models that take into account the syncretism and multi-aspect nature of such phenomena. The central place in the study is occupied by the revision of the linguacultural type structure: the traditional triad of components (conceptual, figurative, axiological) is supplemented by a value-conceptual component, which allows for a more accurate reflection of the cognitive-axiological relationship in the perception of the type by culture bearers. Empirical data, obtained in the course of an experimental study of the “classic writer” type, indicate the dominance of axiological characteristics over conceptual ones, which requires adjustment of existing analysis methods. The article also considers the evolution of classification models of linguacultural types, including the criteria for social, temporal, evaluative and thematic differentiation. However, as the study shows, existing taxonomies are often insufficient for describing complex hybrid types. The work contributes to the development of linguacultural studies, offering innovative tools for studying complex sociocultural phenomena. Prospects for further research are related to the application of the proposed categories to other hybrid types, as well as to the analysis of their functioning in the intercultural media space.

1. Lutovinova, O. V. (2009). “Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh” v ryadu smezhnykh ponyatii, ispol'zuemykh dlya issledovaniya yazykovoi lichnosti [“Linguocultural Type” in a Series of Related Concepts Used to Study Linguistic Personality]. Uchenye zapiski ZabGU. Seriya: Filologiya, istoriya, vostokovedenie. No. 3, pp. 225–228. (In Russian)

2. Karasik, V. I., Dmitrieva, O. A. (2005). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh: k opredeleniyu ponyatiya [Linguocultural Type: Towards the Definition of the Concept]. Aksiologicheskaya lingvistika: lingvokul'turnye tipazhi. Pp. 5–25. Volgograd, Paradigma. (In Russian)

3. Karasik, V. I. (2002). Yazykovoi krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs [Language Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse]. 477 p. Volgograd, Peremena. (In Russian)

4. Dmitrieva, O. A. (2007). Lingvokul'turnye tipazhi Rossii i Frantsii XIX v.: avtoref. dis. … d-ra filol. nauk [Linguocultural Types of Russia and France in the 19th Century: Doctoral Thesis Abstract]. Volgograd, 42 p. (In Russian)

5. Vasil'eva, L. A. (2010). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “britanskii prem'er-ministr”: na materiale sovremennogo angliiskogo yazyka: avtoref. dis. ... kand. filol. nauk [Linguocultural Type “British Prime Minister”: Based on the Modern English Language: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Nizhnii Novgorod, 19 p. (In Russian)

6. Radvan, V. M. (2005). Amerikanskii supermen kak lingvokul'turnyi tipazh [American Superman as a Linguocultural Type]. Aksiologicheskaya lingvistika: lingvokul'turnye tipazhi. Pp. 155–166. Volgograd, Paradigma. (In Russian)

7. Murzinova, I. A. (2009). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “britanskaya koroleva”: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Linguocultural Type “British Queen”: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Volgograd, 27 p. (In Russian)

8. Bral'nin, D. O. (2025). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “pisatel'-klassik” v sovremennoi russkoi rechevoi praktike: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [The Linguocultural Type of “Classic Writer” in Modern Russian Speech Practice: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Arhangel'sk, 24 p. (In Russian)

9. Bral'nin, D. O. (2024). Tsennostno-ponyatiinyi komponent lingvokul'turnogo tipazha “pisatel'-klassik” (na materiale anketirovaniya studentov) [The ValueConceptual Component of the Linguocultural Type “Classic Writer” (based on a student survey)]. Litera. No. 11, pp. 300–308. (In Russian)

10. Murzinova, I. A. (2021). Kriterii klassifikatsii lingvokul'turnykh tipazhei [Criteria for Classification of Linguocultural Types]. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. No. 6, pp. 114–117. (In Russian)

11. Dubrovskaya, E. M. (2024). Sovremennoe sostoyanie teorii lingvokul'turnykh tipazhei [Current State of the Theory of Linguocultural Types]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Teoriya yazyka. Semiotika. Semantika. Vol. 15. No. 2, pp. 394–414. (In Russian)

12. Olyanich, A. V. (2005). “Pizhon” kak kommunikativnyi tipazh: lingvosemioticheskie i diskursivnye prezentatsionnye kharakteristiki [“Dandy” as a Communicative Type: Linguo-Semiotic and Discursive Presentation Characteristics]. Aksiologicheskaya lingvistika: lingvokul'turnye tipazhi. Pp. 234–249. Volgograd, Paradigma. (In Russian)

13. Dubrovskaya, E. M. (2017). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “chelovek bogemy”: dinamicheskii aspect: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Linguocultural Type “Bohemian”: Dynamic Aspect: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Novosibirsk, 25 p. (In Russian)

14. Derevyanskaya, V. V. (2008). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “britanskii kolonial'nyi sluzhashchii”: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Linguocultural Type “British Colonial Employee”: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Volgograd, 25 p. (In Russian)

15. Karasik, V. I. (2009). Yazykovye klyuchi [Language Keys]. 406 p. Moscow, Gnozis. (In Russian)

16. Korovina, A. Yu. (2008). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh “angliiskii snob”: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Linguocultural Type “English Snob”: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Volgograd, 25 p. (In Russian)

17. Reznik, V. A. (2013). Lingvokul'turnyi tipazh v sisteme smezhnykh poyjatii [Linguocultural Type in the System of Related Concepts]. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Vol. 15. No. 2, pp. 481–484. (In Russian)

18. Reznik, V. A. (2016). Soderzhanie, ob’em i struktura lingvokul'turnogo tipazha “britanskii lord” v sinkhronii i diakhronii: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Content, Volume and Structure of the Linguocultural Type “British Lord” in Synchrony and Diachrony: Ph.D. Thesis Abstract]. Samara, 21 p. (In Russian)

19. Berel'kovskaya, O. I. (2016). K voprosu o klassifikatsii lingvokul'turnykh tipazhei (na primere lingvokul'turnogo tipazha “zlodei” / “antigeroi” v anglosaksonskoi sage “Beovul'f”) [On the Classification of Linguocultural Types (Based on the Linguocultural Type “Villain” / “Antihero” in the Anglo-Saxon Saga “Beowulf”)]. Teoriya i praktika lingvisticheskogo opisaniya razgovornoi rechi. No. 30, pp. 33–38. (In Russian)

20. Goreglyad, E. N., Derevyago, A. N. (2019). Toponimnye sredstva sozdaniya lingvokul'turnogo tipazha “Vitebsk” v regional'nom publitsisticheskom tekste [Toponymic Means of Creating the Linguocultural Type “Vitebsk” in a Regional Journalistic Text]. Onomastika v Smolenske i Vitebske: problemy i perspektivy issledovaniya. No. 7, pp. 81–88. (In Russian)

21. Bondarenko, E. N. (2019). K probleme klassifikatsii lingvokul'turnykh tipazhei [On the Problem of Classifying Linguistic and Cultural Types]. Lingua Academica: Aktual'nye problemy lingvistiki i lingvodidaktiki, pp. 33–37. Ul'yanovsk, Ul'yanovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet. (In Russian)

22. Dubrovskaya, E. M., Mandrikova, G. M. (2020). Tipazhi i kvazitipazhi: o razvitii teorii lingvokul'turnykh tipazhei [Types and Quasi-Types: On the Development of the Theory of Linguocultural Types]. Pushkinskie chteniya – 2020. Khudozhestvennye strategii klassicheskoi i novoi slovesnosti: zhanr, avtor, tekst, pp. 344–350. St. Peterburg, LGU im. A. S. Pushkina. (In Russian)

23. Murzinova, I. A. (2020). O sootnoshenii ponyatii “lingvokul'turnyi tipazh” i “kommunikativnyi tipazh” [On the Relationship between the Concepts of “Linguocultural Type” and “Communicative Type”]. Rossiiskaya nauka v sovremennom mire. Vol. 2, pp. 88–92. Moscow. (In Russian)