In search of new linguistic and cultural types of modern women

Vepreva Irina T.,

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian Language, General Linguistics and Speech Communication Department

Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin

e-mail: irina_vepreva@mail.ru

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2230-1985

Polyakova Irina G.,

Candidate of Sciences in Sociology,

Research Associate of the Ural Center for Advanced Studies

Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin

e-mail: irinapolykova@yandex.ru

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9619-2152

Shalina Irina V.,

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian Language, General Linguistics and Speech Communication Department,

Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin

e-mail: irina_shalina@mail.ru

https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-1127-4264

The relevance of the problems of this article is determined by the need to identify new linguistic and cultural types of modern women who actively represent the principles of social multi-status, socio-political and professional activity. The novelty lies in the involvement of previously unexplored material: the article is devoted to the analysis of the cultural types of a female oocyte donor. The research material was 65 semi-structured interviews with donors from one of the reproductive centers in Yekaterinburg. The subjective positioning of informants during the interview made it possible to specify the sociolinguistic data of the cultural types passport: social status, field of activity, marital status, hobbies, etc. It has been revealed that a modern woman, along with a man, wants to successfully realize herself in the professional sphere, build a career, earn money, skillfully combining the values of marriage and work. The dominance of egocentric culture trends creates in a modern woman a sense of focus solely on her interests, an inflated self-esteem, and a sense of independence. The attitude towards self-sufficiency and freedom negates the attitude towards trust in God. The motivational mechanism that determines the decision to donate is based on two factors: on the one hand, the willingness to sacrifice, combined with the ability to endure difficulties, on the other hand, the desire to earn.

Keywords: modern woman, linguistic and cultural type, oocyte donor, axiological ambivalence, manifestation of egocentric culture
 

References

1. Dzialoshinskii I.M., Lobodenko L.K., Pil’gun M.A. Sotsial’nye soobshchestva i kommunikatsionnye servisy v epokhu tsifrovoi tsivilizatsii. Cheliabinsk: Izdatel’skii tsentr IuUrGU, 2020. 746 s.

2. Mikhailova S.V., Mironova Yu.A. Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh “delovaia zhenshchina” kak konstrukt mediakommunikatsii // Gender i problemy kommunikativnogo povedeniia: sb. materialov VI Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. (Polotsk, 27–28 oktiabria 2016 g.) / redkol.: M.D. Putrova i dr. Novopolotsk: PGU, 2016. S. 147–151.

3. Karasik V.I. Iazykovye kliuchi. Moscow: Gnozis, 2009. 406 s.

4. Karasik V.I., Dmitrieva O.A. Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh: k opredeleniiu poniatiia // Aksiologicheskaia lingvistika: lingvokul’turnye tipazhi: sb. nauch. tr. / pod red. V.I. Karasika. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2005. S. 5–25.

5. Voroshilova O.N. Evoliutsiia obrazov zhenshchiny v obshchestvennom soznanii: avtoref. dis. … kand. filos. nauk. Zernograd, 2008. 26 s.

6. Osmonzhanova M.F., Kysylbaikova M.I. Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh “sovremennaia zhenshchina” v soznanii predstavitelei russkoiazychnoi kul’tury // Ammosov-21: sb. materialov nauch.-prakt. konf. studentov SVFU. Yakutsk, 2021. S. 558–561.

7. Kochetkova T.N. Stereotipnyi obraz sovremennoi uspeshnoi zhenshchiny // Global’nyi nauchnyi potentsial. 2015. No. 2 (47). S. 16–19.

8. Chernyshova D.A, Shalina I.V. Lingvokul’turnyi tipazh “iazhemat’” po dannym internet-obshcheniia // Molodye golosa: sb. tr. molodykh uchenykh. Vyp. 9. Ekaterinburg: Azhur, 2020. S. 48–54.

9. Shveitser A. Blagogovenie pered zhizn’iu / pod obshch. red. A.A. Guseinova, M.G. Selezneva. Moscow: Progress, 1992. 572 s.

10. Barkun G.K., Lysenko I.M., Kosenkova E.G. Bioeticheskie problemy iskusstvennogo oplodotvoreniia // Bioetika i sovremennye problemy meditsinskoi etiki i deontologii: materialy Respub. nauch.-prakt. konf. s mezhdunar. uchastiem (Vitebsk, 2 dekabria 2016 g.). Vitebsk: VGMU, 2016. S. 50–53.

11. Karasik A.V. O situatsii smekhovogo obshcheniia // Osnovnoe vysshee i dopolnitel’noe obrazovanie: problemy didaktiki i lingvistiki. Volgograd: Politekhnik, 2000. S. 105–108.

12. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven Europian countries / G. Pennings, J. de Mouzon, F. Shenfield et al. // Human Reproduction. 2014. Vol. 29 (5). P. 1076–1089.

13. Investigating attitudes towards oocyte donation amongst potential donors and the general population: a systematic review / S. Platts, T. Bracewell-Milnes, S. Saso et al. // Human Fertility. 2019. Vol. 24 (3). P. 169–181.

14. Khubulava G.G. Eticheskie aspekty “zhivogo” donorstva // Vestnik SPbGU. Ser. 17. 2015. Vyp. 4. S. 79–84.

15. Dmitrieva O.A. Lingvokul’turnye tipazhi Rossii i Frantsii XIX veka. Volgograd: Peremena, 2007. 307 s.

16. Suntseva Ya.V., Chepak M.G. Osobennosti predstavlenii ob ideal’noi sem’e u devushek v sravnenii s predstavleniiami iunoshei // Innovatsionnaia nauchnaia sovremennaia akademicheskaia issledovatel’skaia traektoriia. 2021. No. 5 (8). S. 89–98.