.png)
UDC 821.161.1(1)
Amineva Venera R.,
Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor,
Professor of the Russian Literature and Teaching Techniques Department Kazan (Volga region) Federal University;
Leading Researcher
Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences
e-mail: amineva1000@list.ru
Nagumanova Elvira F.,
Candidate of Philology,
Associate Professor of the Russian Literature and
Teaching Techniques Department
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
e-mail: ehlviran@yandex.ru
Khabibullina Alsu Z,
Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor of the Russian Literature and
Teaching Techniques Department
Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
e-mail: alsu_zarifovna@mail.ru
For the first time, the article examines the primary methods employed in the study of Russian literature in the Volga Region (Mari and Tatar) in contemporary scientific discourse. Aim: to reveal the epistemiologic potential of the most significant literary approaches and a new theoretical thesaurus, formed from the experience of studying Russian literature in the Volga Region in the early 21 century. Research material — scientific works of leading specialists and philologists in the field of Russian literature (works of I.P. Karpov, I.A. Yenikeeva, Ya.G. Safiullina, K.K. Sultanova). It is stated that the anthropological approach was first applied in I.P. Karpov’s research on the works of Mari El prose writers and poets, writing in Russian. Russian scientist expands the horizons of Mari literature itself due to the fact that the works of Russian-speaking authors, on the one hand, are inscribed in the national Mari context and, on the other, are part of Russian literature. Compared to I.P. Karpov’s strategy of addressing the text, I.A. Enikeev, a researcher of Russian-language literature in Tatarstan, draws attention to the context and develops a unique methodology based on the interaction of factual and biographical principles in solving the problem of the status of Russian-language works in the modern historical and literary context. The novelty of the presented material lies in the systematization of methodological approaches to the problem of Russian-language literatures of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples of the Volga region in a comparative aspect. The tendencies toward expanding the theoretical thesaurus of concepts characteristic of modern scientific discourse and updating the semantics of existing terms are revealed in the field of research on the Russian-language creativity of poets and prose writers of the Volga region.
Keywords: Russian-language literature of Tatarstan, poetry and prose of Mari El, authorology, contextual and biographical method, transgression.
References
1. Burtseva Zh.V. Transkul’turnaia model’ iakutskoi russkoiazychnoi literatury: khudozhestvenno-esteticheskie osobennosti: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Iakutsk, 2008. 28 s.
2. Nabiullina A.N. Fenomen transkul’turatsii v sovremennoi russkoiazychnoi proze: (na materiale proizvedenii I.Abuzyarova, G. Yakhinoi, Sh. Idiyatullina, A. Khairova): avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Kazan, 2023. 24 s.
3. Tlostanova M.V. Transkul’turatsiia kak novaia epistema epokhi globalizatsii // Vestnik RUDN. Ser.: Filosofiia. 2006. No. 2. S. 5–16.
4. Valikova O., Bakhtikireeva U. Literary crossover: on the problem of literary translingualism // Analele Universitatii din Craiova-Seria Stiinte Filologice, Lingvistica. 2017. Vol. 39. No. 1–2. P. 218–230.
5. Bamiro E.O. Transcultural creativity in wold Englishes: Speech events in Nigerian English literature // International Journal of Linguistics. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 1–16.
6. Bhabha H. The location of culture. London; New York: Routledge, 1994. 285 s.
7. Dagnino A. Global mobility, transcultural literature, and multiple modes of modernity // Transcultural Studies. 2013. No. 2. P. 45–73.
8. Leiderman N.L. Russkoiazychnaia literature — perekrestok kul’tur // Filologicheskii klass. 2015. No. 3 (41). S. 19–24.
9. Amineva V.R. Natsional’nye literatury respublik Povolzh’ia kak “mezhliteraturnaia obshchnost’” // Natsional’nye literatury respublik Povolzh’ia (1980–2010 gg.). Barnaul: Izd. gruppa “Si-press”, 2012. S. 5–13.
10. Bakhtikireeva U.M. “Iazykovoe inobytie”: rodnoe ili nerodnoe: (voobrazhaemyi razgovor s Nafi Grigor’evichem Dzhusoity) // Vestnik Vladikavkazskogo nauchnogo tsentra. 2015. T. 15. No. 5. S. 54–60.
11. Karpov I.P. Russkoiazychnaia mariiskaia literatura: monografiia. Yoshkar-Ola: Mariiskii gos. un-t, 2022. 180 s.
12. Enikeev I.A. Russkoiazychnaia literatura Tatarstana (1960–2020). Kazan: IIaLI, 2021. 120 s.
13. Yakhina G. Guzel Yakhina o vtorom romane “Deti moi”: “pisat’ nachala s glav o Staline”: interv’iu // Vecherniaia Kazan. 2018. 11 maia. URL: www.evening-kazan.ru/articles/guzel-yahina-o-vtorom-romane-deti-moi-pisa... (20.09.2023).
14. Safyullin Ya.G. Poniatie “natsional’naia literatura”: metamorfozy soderzhaniia // Natsional’nye literatury na sovremennom etape: nauchnye kontseptsii i gipotezy: kruglyi stol, posviashchennyi 80-letiiu sozdaniia IIaLI im. G. Ibragimova AN RT (11 sentiabria 2019 g., Kazan): sb. st. Vyp. 1. Kazan: IIaLI, 2019. S. 157–181.
15. Tsyrendorzhina A.B. Russkoiazychnye khudozhestvennye teksty: rus-skii iazyk v nerusskom cheloveke // Vestnik RUDN. Ser.: Voprosy obrazovaniia: iazyki i spetsial’nost’. 2015. No. 4. S. 98–103.
16. Sultanov K.K. Travmaticheskii opyt i antropologicheskaia dominanta. Guzel Yakhina // Voprosy literatury. 2022. No. 6. S. 13–31. URL: https://voplit.ru/2022/12/24/travmaticheskij-opyt-i-antropologicheskaya-... (15.09.2023).