On the method of analyzing the “nature-text” in ethical literary criticism

INTRODUCTION. The application of the method of “text-nature” analysis is discussed, based on the concept of “umwelt”, which is of decisive importance for ethical literary criticism. The purpose of the study is to characterize the method of “text-nature” analysis and the term “brain text”, to emphasize that the literary work of a critic should respect the natural process of creating works and encourage readers to freely interpret texts to achieve ethical and moral values in understanding life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The book-essay “In Memory of Memory” by M.M. Stepanova and the novel “Anna Karenina” by L.N. Tolstoy were used. A textual analysis was conducted through interpretation, a descriptive method was used, which facilitates the development of further scientific procedures in the field of using the Umwelt for literary studies purposes, a method of analyzing the “nature-text” was introduced, designed to return literary texts to the ecological sphere, to the Umwelt.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. The analysis of the “nature-text” in ethical literary criticism is substantiated, opening up a new perspective for literary criticism. The use of the Umwelt concept, refracted through the prism of literary criticism, allows us to consider that when reading and criticizing a literary work, their relationship with the ecological environment should be taken into account. Literary reading and criticism should be based on their involvement in the surrounding world and the extraction of meanings.

CONCLUSION. A new paradigm of literary criticism is developing, the essence of which is to pay attention to the natural process of creating literary works and the reader’s experience, since both the reader and the critic have their own umwelt.

1. Kurbakova M.A. Analysis of the aesthetic world in a literary piece. Kul’tura i tsivilizatsiya = Culture and Civilization, 2021, vol. 11, no. 6-1, pp. 138-149. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2021.99.54.018, https://elibrary.ru/oceaon

2. Nie Zhenzhao. Vvedenie v eticheskuyu literaturnuyu kritiku. St. Petersburg, Saint Petersburg State University Publ., 2021, 368 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/hspksb

3. Lyusy A.P. Zhenzhao Nie. Introduction to ethical literary criticism. Voprosy literatury, 2023, no. 2, pp. 174-179. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2023-2-174-179, https://elibrary.ru/tgbwza

4. Myshkina A.F., Zaitseva T.I., Emelyanova T.N. Problems of national aesthetics and literary creativity in artistic space of the beginning of the 21st century. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Philology. Theory & Practice, 2019, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 364-367. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2019.2.77, https://elibrary.ru/vtrmix

5. Bart R. Nulevaya stepen’ pis’ma. Moscow, Academic Project Publ., 2008. 431 p. (In Russ.)

6. Maran T. Towards an integrated methodology of ecosemiotics: The concept of nature-text. Sign Systems Studies, 2007, vol. 35, no. 1-2, pp. 269-294. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2007.35.1-2.10

7. Bushev S.A. Umwelt conception of Jacob von Uexkull and forming of biosemiotics. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 7: Filosofiya = Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy. Series: Philosophy, 2008, no. 2, pp. 82-87. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jvguif

8. Knyazeva E.M. J. von Uexkull’s concept of “Umwelt” and its significance for the modern epistemology. Voprosy filosofii, 2015, no. 5, pp. 30-44. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ttcorx

9. Knyazeva E.N. Biosemiotics: the origins of an interdisciplinary movement. Voprosy filosofii, 2018, no. 11, pp. 86-98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440001897-1, https://elibrary.ru/vnxphu

10. Lotman Y.M., Shukman A. The text and the structure of its audience. New Literary History, 1982, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 81-87. https://doi.org/10.2307/468958

11. Magnus R., Kull K. Roots of Culture in the Umwelt. The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology, 2012, pp. 649-661. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396430.013.0030

12. Lotman M. Umwelt and Semioshpere. Sign Systems Studies, 2002, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 33-40. http://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2002.30.1.03

13. Maran T. Towards an integrated methodology of ecosemiotics: The concept of nature-text. Sign Systems Studies, 2007, vol. 35, no. 1/2, pp. 269-294. http://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2007.35.1-2.10

14. Bekoff M., Humphrey N., Haggard P. Mozg i soznanie. Razgadka velichaishei tainy chelovecheskogo mozga. Moscow, AST Publ., 2019, 240 p.

15. Zhang Lianqiao. Ethical Literary Criticism: Definition, Form, and Value of Brain Text – Interview with Nie Zhenzhao. Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences), 2019, no. 05, pp. 85-93. (In Chinese). http://doi.org/10.15991/j.cnki.411028.2019.05.012

16. Grimova O.A. Breaking down narrative intrigue in the “Romance” by M. Stepanova “In commemoration of memory”. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Literaturovedenie. Yazykoznanie. Kul’turologiya = RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. Series: Literary Theory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies, 2020, no. 9-2, pp. 140-151. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2020-9-140-151, https://elibrary.ru/xspqrc