The Evolution of Key Terms in Russian and German Personality Research Tradition

The evolving field of linguistic personality studies exhibits significant terminological variation, particularly between Russian and German academic discourse. This heterogeneity can impede clear communication, systematic development, and comparative research within the discipline. The article aims to explore the diachronic evolution of key terms in the conceptual framework of linguistic personality studies in these two academic traditions, identify fundamental terms, their variability, and emerging trends. The study determines the proportional distribution of the most frequently used terms, enabling a quantitative characterization of their relevance and demand in the academic community. A qualitative and quantitative content analysis was applied to the theoretical literature. This was followed by a statistical analysis to quantify and visualize results using graphs and diagrams. It is necessary for illustrating the formation, development, and transformation of the terminological corpus of personality-oriented linguistics. The qualitative content analysis identified key terms, while the quantitative approach measured their frequency of use. The analysis was conducted on 4900 academic publications (4505 Russian, 395 German), selected via controlled keyword searches. The significant difference in the number of research papers can be explained by the different proportions of publications in the field of Russian and German linguistic personality studies. The results highlight the heterogeneity of the terminological framework in linguistic personality studies, shaped by a diversity of research approaches, methodological paradigms, and researchers’ inclination toward terminological innovation. Notably, distinct thematic focuses and varying degrees of interest in specific areas (e.g., bilingualism, language identity dynamics) were observed between Russian and German scholarship, contributing to different semantic interpretations and usage of key concepts. The conducted comparative analysis provides a deeper understanding of the current state of linguistic personality theory and may serve as a foundation for further improvement of classification criteria in the terminological system of the discipline.

1. Akhrenova, N.A., & Milyakova, V.V. (2022). Yazykovaia lichnost’ vs virtual’naia iazykovaia lichnost’ [Language personality vs virtual language personality]. Inostrannye yazyki v vysshei shkole [Foreign Languages in Tertiary Education], 1(60), 10-20 (in Russian). doi:10.37724/RSU.2022.60.1.001

2. Bagirova, G. (2024). Die sprachliche Persönlichkeit im künstlerischen Diskurs: Linguokultureller Aspekt [The linguistic personality in the artistic discourse: linguocultural aspect]. Berlin: Verlag Unser Wissen (in German).

3. Bogomolova, A.V. (2024). Yazykovaia lichnost’ vs diskursivnaia lichnost’: ot obshchego k chastnomu [Linguistic personality vs discursive personality: from the general to the specific]. Vestnik NGU. Seriia: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaia kommunikatsiia [Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural communication], 22(3), 5-19 (in Russian). doi:10.25205/1818-7935-2024-22-3-5-19

4. Busch, B. (2018). Das Sprachenportrait in der Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung [The language portrait in multilingualism research]. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie [Osnabrück papers on language theory], 93, 53-70 (in German).

5. Chudinov, A.P., & Nikiforova, M.V. (2017). Lingvopoliticheskaya personologiya: metodologicheskie osnovy i metodika analiza [Linguopolitical personology: methodological foundations and methods of analysis]. Aktual’nye problemy filologii i pedagogicheskoj lingvistiki [Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics], 1, 22-29 (in Russian).

6. Dmitrieva, O.A., & Karasik, V.I. (2005). Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh: k opredeleniiu poniatiia [Linguistic and cultural type: towards the definition of the concept]. In V.I. Karasik (Ed.), Aksiologicheskaia lingvistika: lingvokul’turnye tipazhi [Axiological linguistics: linguistic and cultural types] (pp. 5-25). Volgograd: Paradigma (in Russian).

7. Fasmer, M. (2007). Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo yazyka: v 4 tomakh [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes]. Moscow: AST (in Russian).

8. Golev, N.D. (2005). Lingvopersonologiia, antropotekst, tipy yazykovoi lichnosti (lingvopersonemy) [Linguopersonology, anthropotext, types of linguistic personality (linguopersonemes)]. In Universitetskaya filologiya – obrazovaniyu: chelovek v mire kommunikatsii: mat-ly mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. «Kommunikativistika v sovremennom mire: chelovek v mire kommunikatsii» [University Philology for Education: A Human in the World of Communication: proceedings of the International scientific conference “Communication studies in the modern world: human in the world of communication], Barnaul, Russia, April 12-16, 2005 (pp. 84-86). Barnaul (in Russian).

9. Grishaeva, L.I. (2006). Individual’noe ispol’zovanie iazyka i kognitivno-diskursivnyi invariant «iazykovaia lichnost’» [Cultural identity and discourse]. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki [Issues of Cognitive Linguistics], 1, 16-22 (in Russian).

10. Gulyaeva, E.V. (2011). Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh «politik» v sovremennom rossiiskom diskurse [Linguo-cultural type “Russian politician”]. Politicheskaia lingvistika [Political linguistics], 3(37), 184-187 (in Russian).

11. Karasik, V.I. (2007). Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh [Linguistic and cultural type]. Yazyk. Tekst. Diskurs [Language. Text. Discourse], 5, 86-89 (in Russian).

12. Karaulov, Yu.N. (1987). Russkii yazyk i yazykovaia lichnost’ [Russian language and linguistic personality]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie [Education] (in Russian).

13. Kitaigorodskaya, M.V., & Rozanova, N.N. (1995). Russkii rechevoi portret [Russian speech portrait]. Moscow: Fonokhrestomatiia [Phonotextbook] (in Russian).

14. König, G. (n.d.). Autor, Publikationsberater, Sprachpersönlichkeits – Trainer [Author, publication consultant, language personality trainer]. Retrieved 2025, January 27, from https://gerdkoenig.com (in German).

15. Kostomarov, P.I. (2014). Anthropozentrismus und Sprachpersönlichkeit [Anthropocentrism and language personality]. Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3-4, 181- 184 (in German).

16. Kreiswirth, M. (1992). Trusting the tale: The narrativist turn in the human sciences. New Literary History, 23(3), 629-657.

17. Krumm, H.-J., & Jenkins, E.-M. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit: Sprachenportraits gesammelt und kommentiert von Hans-Jürgen Krumm [Children and their languages - lively multilingualism: language portraits collected and commented by Hans-Jürgen Krumm]. Wien: Eviva (in German).

18. Kubriakova, E.S. (1995). Evoliutsiia lingvisticheskikh idei vo vtoroi polovine XX veka (opyt pradigmal’nogo analiza) [The evolution of linguistic ideas in the second half of the 20th century (the experience of paradigmatic analysis)]. In Yazyk i nauka kontsa 20 veka [Language and science of the late 20th century] (pp. 144-238). Moscow: RSUH Publisher (in Russian).

19. Matveeva, G.G. (1993). Skrytye grammaticheskie znacheniia i identifikatsiia sotsial’nogo litsa («portreta») govoriashchego [Hidden grammatical meanings and identification of the speaker’s social face («portrait»)] [PhD thesis, Saint-Petersburg] (in Russian).

20. Napreenko, G.V. (2024). Programmnye vozmozhnosti identifikatsii tekstov: sopostavlenie na skhozhest’, ustanovlenie tozhdestva, proverka na unikal’nost’ [Software capabilities for text identification: comparison for similarity, identity establishment, uniqueness check]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University], 3 (485), 55-65 (in Russian). doi: 10.47475/1994-2796-2024-485-3-55-65

21. Neroznak, V.P. (1996). Lingvisticheskaia personologiia: k opredeleniiu statusa distsipliny [Linguistic Personology: towards determining the status of the discipline]. In Yazyk. Poetika. Perevod [Language. Poetics. Translation]: collection of scientific articles. Moscow: MSLU, 112- 116 (in Russian).

22. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic Narratives as Data in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163-188. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm008

23. Postovalova, V.I. (2017). O vnutrinauchnoi refleksii v gumanitarnom poznanii (Prolegomeny k metalingvokul’turologii) [On intrascientific reflection in humanitarian cognition (Prolegomena to metalinguoculturology)]. In I.V. Zykova, Metayazyk lingvokul’turologii: konstanty i variant [The metalanguage of linguoculturology: constants and variants] (pp. 8-25). Moscow: Gnozis (in Russian).

24. Seel, L. (2020). Das Sprachporträt als soziolinguistische Methode: Zur Sprachintegration multilingualer Migrant*innen aus Afrika im Rhein-Main-Gebiet [The language portrait as a sociolinguistic method: On the language integration of multilingual migrants from Africa in the RhineMain area]. Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Ethnologie und Afrikastudien [Papers of the Institute of Ethnology and African Studies], 191, 1-39 (in German).

25. Ulanova, E.E. (2023). Verbal’naia reprezentatsiia yazykovoi lichnosti ustnogo perevodchika: sintaksicheskii aspekt [Verbal representation of the interpreter’s linguistic personality: syntactic aspect]. Cherepovets State University Bulletin, 2(113), 146-158 (in Russian). doi: 10.23859/1994-0637-2023-2-113-12

26. Vaisgerber, I.L. (1927). Rodnoi yazyk i formirovanie dukha. Moscow (in Russian).

27. Vinogradov, V.V. (1930). O khudozhestvennoi proze. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).

28. Zifonun, G., & Strauß, G. (2002). Auf der Suche nach Identität [In search of identity]. In Ansichten der deutschen Sprache. Festschrift für Gerhard Stickel zum 65. Geburtstag [Views of the German language. Publication for Gerhard Stickel for his 65th birthday] (pp. 165-213). Tübingen: Narr (in German).