АКСИОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКИ ДИСКУРСОВ ПЕРСОНАЖЕЙ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ДЕТСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

Introduction

The article deals with contemporary children’s literature from the axiological linguistics point of view. The object under consideration is the discourse of a children’s literature character of the 2000s. The article analyzes axiological priorities of these characters expressed in their attitudes to different language and cultural objects (see also: [7], [8], [9]]. Texts under consideration are the novels of Children’s Book and Children’s Book for Girls by Boris Akinin [1], [2] and Gloria Mu [6]. The article aims in revealing the relativity of the axiological scale of contemporary children’s literature characters, which is shown in specific axiogenic situations.

Method

The main methods used in axiological linguistics are discourse analysis and conceptual analysis. Methodology of axiological linguistic researches is based on hermeneutics, conceptology, and discourse analysis procedures. Studying axiogenic situations in children’s literature texts, we reveal different types of values in contemporary children’s literature characters’ discourses.

Discussion 

Axiogenic situations are thought of as “situations, which are closely connected to values definitions” [4, P. 7]. Understanding that “the list of axiogenic situations is very long and quite analogical to the list of main plots in the world literature” [4, P. 8], we can see the main axiogenic situation for the protagonists of the dilogy of Children’s Book as the situation of the fight between the Good and the Evil, Love and Hate in the world. The point of view at this situation, which is given by a person from the future, the professor Van Dorn, to the main character of the Children’s Book, Erast (Lastik) Fandorin, is rather pragmatic: Известно ли вам, мой дорогой родственник, что Добра и Зла в мире поровну, ровно грамм в грамм? Именно поэтому мир все время балансирует между двумя этими энергетическими полюсами, качаясь то в одну, то в другую сторону [1, P. 55]. The opposite of the professor Van Dorn is Lusinda Grey who told to Lastik’s sister, Gelya Fandorina, about the diamond called a “Paradise Apple”: Вопрос Добра и Зла – главный вопрос на свете. Для мужчин. Для женщин же – Любовь. Добро – штука хорошая, кто спорит, но есть вещи, которые не могут предназначаться для всех и быть поровну на всех поделенными. …Справедливый мир, в котором не правит Любовь, – это ужасно. Любовь выше справедливости и выше всего на свете [6, P. 42-43]. Manipulating with the Fandorin juniors, Lastik and Gelya, to achieve their own goals, the professor Van Dorn and Lusinda Grey announce the “Paradise Apple” diamond to be the “quintessence of the Evil” [1, P. 55] and at the same time “the source of light of all-penetrating love” [6, P. 42], which can, however, turn into “the 64 carats of concentrated hatred” [6, P. 44]. Sci-fi plot of both Children’s Books is pictured around the time travel of Lastik and Gelya, who try to find out the “Paradise Apple”. Lastik goes to the past and future through the chronoholes [1, P. 65]; Gelya appears in the past in the body of her great-grandmother, Appolinariya Ryndina, with the help of the gadget called “Slumbercraft” [6, P. 15].

Both scientists from the future are seen by the Fandorin family as foreigners due to their speech and manner: Папу сопровождал какой-то долговязый, сухопарый старик – сразу видно, что иностранец: в шляпе с перышком, с белым шарфом навыпуск, а в руке объемистый саквояж ярко-желтой кожи [1, P. 30]. An ironical reminiscence to the Bulgakov’s text makes a reader to appreciate the professor in a rather different way than he is appreciated by Nikolas and Lastik Fandorin. When the professor says he does not understand Russian speech quite well if he does not see the face of his counterpart [1, P. 33], it gives him even more charm in the eyes of the Fandorin family.

One more charismatic feature of the professor Van Dorn from the point of view of Lastik Fandorin is his Latin and English, used very often. The professor dubs in Russian all of his phrases in English and Latin: «Chronohole», или хронодыра, мой юный друг, – это такой лаз, по которому можно попасть в другое время [1, P. 65].  Lusinda Grey is appreciated as a Hollywood actress: Это была одна из зарубежных артисток, Геля ее в первом ряду видела. Как попала за кулисы, непонятно. Очень красивая брюнетка  с короткой стрижкой и огромными зелеными глазами. Одета – с ума сойти, алые ногти чуть не по пять сантиметров, на груди кулон в виде золотой змейки, проглотившей собственный хвост. …В другое время Геля смутилась бы. Ну, как минимум, удивилась бы: иностранка, а хорошо по-русски говорит, да еще фон Дорнов поминает [6, P. 10]. As well as the professor does, Lusinda Grey tries to dub everything said in Latin and English using Russian: – Ну, например, у меня есть аппарат, который я условно назвала Slumbercraft. По-русски это будет что-то вроде… – Люсинда задумалась. – Сонолет? – предположила Геля» [6, P. 15]. Speaking foreign languages is seen by children at the beginning of the 21^st century as a prestigious characteristic, which becomes the positive teleological feature of a person (cf.: [3, P. 199]). The Fandorin juniors appreciate speaking English as a psychological and utility value: both Lastik and Gelya are the so called “heritage” children, because their father, Nikolas Fandorin, was born in a Russian family in Great Britain and came into Russia as an adult person, and their mother is a Russian Tatar Altyn Mamaeva. It is interesting that the English language plays a role of a manipulating instrument to shorten a communicative distance between the “future” elder Fandorin family members and a younger generation. But when children are coming into the past, their good command in English becomes a stumble in communication for them. In this situation, the elder generation of the Fandorin family from the future is an axiological ideal pattern, whose speech with foreign phrases is copied by children: – O’key. Времени у нас совсем мало, – кивнула Люсинда». – «Тогда, вскинув руки ладонями вперед, словно отодвигая от себя эту вопящую троицу, Геля выкрикнула: – Я в порядке! В порядке. Со мной все o’key! – И все сразу заткнулись. Но стало еще хуже [6, P. 54, 70].  Axiological priorities of the characters in 1914, where Gelya comes from the 21^st century, differ from hers: her colloquial English is appreciated as the consequence of her head trauma. But to exist in the past and live a usual life, Gelya needs to speak some foreign languages, which are studied in gymnasium: so, Gelya starts speaking German and French after using samsonite, an elixir modernized by Lusinda Grey. Ironical allusions to the Lewis Carroll’s text follow drinking of this “linguistic potion”: Все страньше и страньше, – пробормотала девочка; – Вот, выпей это. – А что это? – Геля не нашла на пузырьке надписи «яд», но мало ли [6, P. 62].

This samsonite should teach the girl to speak one more “foreign” language – the pre-reformed Russian, because there can be spelling problems with it for a contemporary child. Russian as a foreign language, which needs a translation, is a stumbling point for Lastik Fandorin, too, because he appears in the 17^th century coming there from the chronohole: – Охо-хонюшки, – тяжело вздохнул Василий Иванович. – Измыслено-то гораздо. А еже дознаются? Не снесу аз грешный головы.

Сначала вроде было понятно, но с этого места Ластик, что называется, упустил нить. Пришлось отодвинуться от дырки – снова следить по экрану.

– Ох-охонюшки (Междометие, выражающее опасение или досаду), – счел нужным пояснить унибук. – Придумано-то искусно. А если дознаются? Не сносить мне грешному головы [2, P. 246]. But step by step both Lastik and Gelya try to communicate effectively in the past, though aesthetic and utility appraisals [3, P. 198-199] of the world around them are mostly negative.

The only axiological priority of the old time way of life for Gelya appears to be books and their utility in everyday life routine: Аглая Тихоновна тоже часто читала – Аннушке, пока та гладила белье, Василию Савельевичу – чтобы приспать, и Геле – просто так; и это домашнее чтение неожиданно царапнуло девочку по сердцу [6, P. 99]. The habit of the family members to read aloud makes Gelya to re-focus the values of the 21^st century, where it is a rule to read aloud only to little children: На самом деле все кончилось просто – они с Эраськой выросли, научились читать, засели за книжки и  ноутбуки, и папа им больше ничего не рассказывает. Да и не слушает, если честно, – наверное, ему теперь с ними скучно. У каждого своя жизнь – у папы, у мамы, у Эраськи и у нее, Гели. А вот у Рындиных почему-то общая, пусть всякий и занят своими делами [6, P. 100]. Neither authors nor narrators of the dilogy preach at this change of axiological priorities [see also: 5, P. 34-44], but the relativity of contemporary teenagers’ axiological scale is given obviously: И снова стало немножко стыдно – она, конечно, очень соскучилась по маме, но если бы сейчас какой-нибудь волшебник спросил – что ты хочешь, девочка? Чтобы здесь появилась на час твоя мама или интернет? – Геля бы выбрала интернет. Без мамы можно было потерпеть, взрослая уже, а вот без интернета – как без рук [6, P. 88]. An ethical appraisal of the axiological choice presents here (стало немножко стыдно), but the utility values of the information age are more relevant in the situation of the contextual information lack. Moreover, the gadgets, and not people are “rescue rangers” in any trouble. With the light irony the authors of the dilogy make gadgets “the emergency response group” for the children: the Slumbercraft takes out Gelya from the past at the moment she falls into a coma, and the unibook, as an armored jacket, saves Lastik from the bullet, which had got into his chest.

Results      

The protagonists of the dilogy of Children’s Books by Boris Akunin and Gloria Mu get in axiogenic situations because they do not want to betray their family, friends or beloved people. Their ethical values from this point of view are absolutely stable. Psychological and aesthetic values of the 21^st century teenagers are often taken from Hollywood movies and anime. Lastik believes, as a lot of boys do: …лишь он один может сделать что-то очень-очень важное: добыть Кольцо Всевластья, найти потаенную Запертую Комнату или совершить еще какой-нибудь неслыханный подвиг [1, P. 41]. Gelya sees the axiological ideal of male’s beauty and charm in Tamaki Suo from anime, then in Johnny Depp [6, PP. 23, 251]. Such axiological conclusions are often followed by stereotypical foreign interjections from semiotic patterns (see also: [10]): Геля украдкой покосилась в сторону Виталика Сухарева и мысленно завизжала: «каваииии! каваииии!». Виталик был отаку – двинутым анимешником и, как две капли воды, походил на Тамаки Суо: беспорядочные льняные пряди падают на невозможного, фиалкового цвета глаза, лицо треугольное, совершенно кошачье, воротник белой лицейской рубахи красиво приподнят. Принц Орана, коротко говоря [6, P. 23]. But Gelya’s travel to the past makes her re-appraise her previous values: Тот самый Виталик, в которого Геля… Нет, не так. Тот самый Виталик, о котором Геля ни разу не вспомнила за последние три месяца. Вот вам и любовь. Сначала подумала: какой-то он манерный и самодовольный. А потом стало стыдно. Виталик как Виталик. Он же не виноват, что ей разонравились принцы. Во всяком случае, анимешные [6, P. 397].

When Lastik and Gelya understood that their relatives from the future are swindlers, who search for the diamond to conduct some strange and dangerous experiments, the children realize that they are responsible for the world’s fate and go to search for the diamond themselves.

Conclusion         

So, we can see that the aesthetic ideals and patterns of the protagonists in the dilogy by Boris Akunin and Gloria Mu are mostly taken from the Internet and Hollywood movies. That is why the scientists, who look like foreigners and Hollywood actors, can manipulate easily with the teenagers’ emotions. Copying their favorite characters and “prestigious” adults, the protagonists of the dilogy imitate their speech characteristics, installing foreign stereotypical phrases into their own speech. Speaking foreign languages is psychologically and pragmatically valuable for the main characters: in the 21^st century English is acute, in the 20^th century it is German and French which are prestigious. Moreover, the protagonists of the dilogy should learn Russian of different epochs as a foreign language to communicate effectively in the past.

The axiological scale of the 21^st century teenagers is unstable, the preferences can be given rather to information resources and gadgets than to people. Although, we can assert the protagonists of the dilogy have stable ethical priorities. Mutual help, compassion, sympathy to the close friends, relatives and beloved people are the most stable life values of the junior generation in the Fandorin family, however, these values are appreciated rather ironically by them.