Introduction  

          The notion «language personality» has recently become the object of special attention of such branches of linguistic sciences as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, linguistic study of culture, cognitive linguistics, ethnolinguistics, text linguistics, linguodidactics, etc. 

Language personality from the standpoint of linguistic study of culture is, first of all, a bearer of national culture.  According to V. I. Karasik, language personality is always national and a part of certain linguocultural society with inherent consciousness  and national stereotypes which the language personality appropriates in the process of socialization [6]. Yu. N. Karaulov   expresses the same thought defining language personality as « being fixed primarily in semantic system basic national and cultural prototype of the bearer of a certain natural language that makes up timeless and invariant part of the structure of language personality» [7, p.42].

In sociolinguistics, language personality is understood as a native speaker, «being capable of realizing a set of linguistic means in speech activity, that characterize a definite part of the language community (social group) within a given interval of time» [9, p.12]. Sociolinguists differentiate various types of language personality based on a social type being characterized by a certain age, sex, profession, social status (V.I. Karasik, G. N. Bespamyatnova, M. A. Gusyeva, etc.).

Psycholinguistics studies speech behavior of the language personality depending on a psychological type he belongs to.

Themainpart:

The objective of the given article is to describe a specific character of modeling language personality represented in the pages of the literary text, to reveal the peculiarities of literary verbalization of the triad Id-Ego-Superego as the components of sociomodel of the personality being realized in the literary text.                  The material for studying was the text of the story by D. A. Granin «Zubr».

When writing the article according to the set objective, the following methods were used:

-  study, systematization and analysis of the literature on linguistics and methodics to determine scientific basis on the problem of study;

- method of complete sampling  of linguistic units describing three components of personality (Id, Ego and Superego) in the text of literary work.

On the basis of the analysis of the literature on linguistics and methodics, we have come to the conclusion that modern scholars develop different typologies of language personality.  At present, there exist two ways of modeling language personality and his typology based on text characteristics [4, 10]. According to N.D. Golev and А.V. Kuznetsova, in theory and practice of studying language personality there have emerged the following directions of typology:

1) developing typology of language personality based on revealing the peculiarities of author’s using linguistic means in the text, that is the typology in the direction from language/text to the type of language personality, which can be expanded by mental and psychological characteristics-explanations (G. I. Bogin, Yu. N. Karaulov  and the others);

2) developing typology of language personality proceeding from his individual features (in terms of gender, professional, psychic features, etc.), and revealing peculiarities of functioning the given language types in speech, that is, typology in the direction from the type of language personality to his manifestation in speech activity and text (N. D. Golev, К. F. Sedov, L. М. Komissarova, N.А. Kupina, М. V. Lyapon and the others).

Linguosociolonic modeling of language personality based on sociolonic typology by A. Augustinavichute that allows, according to N. D. Golev and A. V. Kuznetsova, «to reveal what speech characteristics will be possessed by the author of the text if he has certain psychological characteristics defining the type of personality», refers to the second direction [1].

In spite of different approaches to understanding of «language personality», it should be noted that the concept «language personality» directly relates to the concept «personality». «Language personality is a personality, expressed in language (texts) and via language, a personality, reconstructed in his general terms on the basis of language means» [7, p.38]. Therefore, analyzing language personality, first of all, one should refer to the structure of personality from the standpoint of psychology.

At one time Z. Freud suggested the theoretical model of personality’s structure consisting of three elements (Id, Ego, Superego), with special functions possessed by each  and relating to the other elements. Id – our biological entity, the most  archaistic part of personality, representing  unconscious behavior, it is that a human has from the moment of his birth, inherited from his parents. Ego – conscious source,  that controls the unconscious, that is, Id. And Superego – is a part of personality responsible for personality’s behavior according to the norms approved of society. Our ego is an interlink between the unconscious and social norms, morality.  

Analyzing the behavior, speech activity of the individual, one can characterize his personality on the whole. Many scholars model language personality belonging to the representatives of different professions, researchers, politicians, etc. taking into account their speech behavior, and their texts. But based on the literary material, one can reveal those elements that constitute the personality in general. The text can be sufficient material for describing a personality, including the speech one, a character of the literary work.

In particular, in the text, the author creating a portrait of the character of the work, describing how he behaves, treats people around him, rendering the character’s speech gives the scholars the essential material due to which one can represent a sociomodel of personality, a personality of the character from the literary work.   

As an example, one can take the story by D. Granin «Zubr», where the components of the personality of the main character, Zubr, whose prototype is the biologist N. V. Timofeyev-Resovsky, from the point of view of the personality theory by Z. Freud.

Theresearchresultsanddiscussion

As a result of our research, we have revealed that the author, D. A. Granin, in his work, describes in detail all the three components of sociomodel of the personality of Zubr – The Id-Ego-Superego.

Let us give the brightest examples of Id’s representation in the following contexts:

1) Могучая его голова была набычена, (Hismightyheadgotsulky,) 2) маленькие глазки сверкали исподлобья колюче и зорко. (smalleyesgleamedsullenlypricklyandvigilantly) 3) Густая седая грива его лохматилась. (Thethickgraymaneofhiswasshaggy) 4) Он был, конечно, стар, (Hewasold, ofcourse)  5) но годы не источили его, а скорее задубили. (but the years did not get him slack, but got rather stiff)  6) Онбылтяжелитверд, какмореныйдуб(He was heavy and steadfast as a fumed oak )[2, p.3].

7) Видно было по его коренастой фигуре, по его ручищам, какой огромной физической силы был этот человек. (It was seen from his stocky figure, his big hands, of what  great physical strength this man was.)

8) Лицо его было изрезано морщинами жизни бурной и значительной. (His face was cut up with wrinkles of stormy and great life.)

9) Следы минувших схваток, отчаянных схваток, не безобразили, а скорее украшали его сильную, породистую физиономию (Traces of past battles, desperate battles did not disfigure him, but rather decorated  his determined, thoroughbred face)  [2, p.4].

10) АсамЗубрздесьещевполнойсилеикрасе (And Zubr himself is still vigorous enough and handsome) [2, p.5].

Let us list the most meaningful examples of representation of Ego in the following contexts:

1) Оттопыривнижнююгубу, онпофыркивал, рычалтоодобрительно, товозмущенно (Pursing up  his lower lip, he was snorting, growling either with approval  or perturbation) [2, p.3].

2) Зубродобрительнохмыкал (Zubr snorted approvingly) [2, p.4].

3) Сам Зубр принимал этот неожиданный парад как должное. (Zubr himself took this unexpected parade for granted.)

4) Похожебыло, чтоемунравиласьрольмаршалаилипатриарха, онмилостивокивал, выслушиваллюдей, (It seemed that he liked the role of marshal or patriarch, he nodded graciously, listened to the people,)[2, p.4]

5) И держался он по-иному, чем все, – свободнее, раскованнее. (And he behave  differently than the others - freer, in a relaxed manner.)

6) Он позволял себе быть самим собою. (He afforded to be himself.) 7) Какимтообразомонсохранялэтупривилегиюдетей. (Somehow he retained the privilege of children.) 8)В нем были изысканность и – грубость(Hehadeleganceand – rudemanners)  [2, p.4].

Representation of the third component of the analyzed triad, Superego, has been exposed in the following examples:

1) К нему подходили, кланялись, осторожно пожимали руку(Everybody  came uptohim, bowed, gently shook his hand) [2, p.3].

2) Большинствоподходилиименнозатем, чтобывзглянутьнанегохотябыиздали (Most came up to him in order to look at him even if from a distance) [2, p.3].

3) О Зубре ходили легенды, множество легенд одна невероятнее другой. Их передавали на ухо. Не верили. Ахали. Было бы странно, если бы подобные россказни подтвердились. Они походили на мифы, которыми пытались объяснить какие-то факты его жизни. (Legends are flying about Zubr, many legends, each more incredible than the other. They were passed in the ear. They were not believed in. They exclaimed. It would be strange if these stories were confirmed. They were like the myths that by which they  tried to explain some facts of his life.)

О нем существовали анекдоты, ему приписывались изречения, выходки и поступки совершенно невозможные. Были просто сказочные истории, интересно, что не всегда для него лестные, некоторые так прямо зловещие. Нобольшейчастьюгероическиеилижеплутовские, никакнесвязанныеснаукой  (There were jokes about him, they were crediting him with saying, tricks and acts to be completely impossible. There were just fairy tales, it’s interesting that they were not always flattering for him, just because some of them were ominous. But for the most part, heroic or roguish, not related to science) [2, p.4].

4) Итоидругоесоответствовалолегендамоегоаристократическихпредкахиоегодракахсуголовниками ( Both corresponded to the legends of his aristocratic ancestors and his fights with criminals) [2, p.4].

As we can note from these examples, the language means being used to nominate three elements of the personality are multifarious by volume and in semantics. The author uses various lexical and syntactic units.

From the lexical units, used by the author to describe Id of the main character,  the most frequent, as we have observed, one can differentiate the adjectives with the meaning of high degree of the manifested feature  (могучаяголова, густаяседаягрива, морёныйдуб, сильная, породистаяфизиономия), short adjectives with the same meaning  (голованабычена, былтяжелитверд).

From the syntactic means one can take notice of using the nominal predicates in the sentences  (головабыланабычена; онбылстар; онбылтяжелитвёрд; лицобылоизрезаноморщинами; АсамЗубрздесьещевполнойкрасеисиле). When the author describes the unconscious source in the personality of the scientist, he uses the units that are typical for description, the author creates a word portrait of the character.

In describing Ego and Superego, most frequently the author uses the verbs characterizing the character’s actions and behavior  in the story and the adverbs depicting these actions  (онпофыркивал, рычалтоодобрительно, товозмущенно; онодобрительнохмыкал; милостивокивал). Concerning the structure of the sentences that portray Ego and Superego, these sentences are complicated by homogeneous parts (Оттопыривнижнююгубу, он пофыркивал, рычал то одобрительно, то возмущенно; он милостиво кивал, выслушивал людей; К нему подходили, кланялись, осторожно пожимали руку; ему приписывались изречения, выходки и поступки совершенно невозможные)

The examples from the story by D. Granin «Zubr» analyzed in the article represent the possibility to use literary text as the material to model language personality.

Conclusion

Analyzing units of language used by the author in the literary work, from the point of view of form and content, one can model and characterize the personality being described in the literary work not only from the standpoint of psychology but from the standpoint of linguistics, that is, represent a sociomodel of the personality.  

The sociomodel of the personality of Zubr in the studied material is a personality possessing both physical and spiritual strength. Zubr is a respected scientist of authority, his every act or action is in the limelight in the society, and Zubr himself, realizing it,  can afford rather more than it is allowed in the scientific community.