SELF-REFERENTIAL CONCEPT SPHERE AND CONSTITUTION OF HUMANITARIAN ONTOLOGY BY THE METALANGUAGE OF PHILOLOGY

Kazanskaya E.V.

Rostov State University of Economics (RINH)
344002, Bolshaya Sadovaya, 69
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
Email: jenni.kot@yandex.ru

Introduction

Contemporary philology faces a methodological challenge. On the one hand, its traditional practices of qualitative analysis and interpretation are being called into question in the context of the dominance of quantitative methods in the digital humanities. On the other hand, deepening interdisciplinarity demands that philology clearly reflect on the nature of its own knowledge and the mechanisms of its production. The question of the epistemological status of philological objects is becoming central: language, text, and meaning are not given as physical phenomena, but are constituted in the very process of their study. Thus, the relevance of this research stems from the need to respond to digital and epistemological challenges by clarifying the ontological function of philological metalanguage.

Theoretical basis of the study

The theoretical foundation of the work consists of three interconnected areas. The first area is conceptology and the theory of concept spheres. In the works of a number of researchers [5, pp. 64–66; 6, pp. 107–109; 7, pp. 267–271; 11; 12, pp. 3–9], the concept of the concept sphere (CS) as a «sphere of concepts» organized systemically and possessing internal dynamics, which serves as the initial framework for modeling a philological metalanguage, has been developed. The second area is the theory of self-referential systems [13; 14], the principle of operational closure of which allows us to describe the construction of its own reality by a system of concepts without direct access to the outside world, but responding to external stimuli through internal restructuring. The third area is the epistemology of humanitarian knowledge [15; 20] and the axiology of scientific discourse [8; 9], where key ideas are the value-laden nature of humanities concepts and the idea that understanding in the humanities always presupposes a reflexive position on the part of the researcher. The synthesis of these approaches allows us to pose the question of philological metalanguage as a self-referential context in which ontological objects are not reflected but constructed.

The methodological basis of the study is a set of provisions of modern semiotics, the main provisions of the theory of metalinguistic reflexivity, covered in the latest publications of 2023-2026, and used by us for the analysis of the current state of the problem, assessment of the relevance and substantiation of the empirical basis: typology of metalinguistic reflexives of M.A. Kravchenko [10], I.G. Rodionova, S.V. Kezina [16], E.P. Ivanyan [4], O.A. Felkina [18]; non-specialized metalinguistic reflection in relation to metaphor of E.E. Ivanova, S.B. Kurash [3]; metaphorical systematization of the metalinguistic sphere of M.S. Gutovskaya [2]. Each source has undergone expert selection according to the criteria of relevance, methodological validity and citation.

During the study, along with general methods of scientific knowledge (deduction, induction, synthesis, analysis), methods of lexicological, terminological, and component-wise analysis were used to study «philological» concepts.

The factual material for the study was a corpus of situational text fragments (metalinguistic reflections on the philological concept and conceptual sphere with a total volume of more than 300 units), created using targeted queries in the Yandex search engine and in the National Corpus of the Russian Language [ruscorpora.ru].

The scientific novelty lies in the development of a theoretical model of philological CS as a dynamic, hierarchically organized, and operationally closed system of concepts. Unlike previous approaches that considered CS statically, the proposed model describes the mechanisms of self-referential generation of CS ontology through nomination, intertextual definition, and a metaphorical framework, and demonstrates how the axiological load of concepts determines the stability of humanitarian reality.

The central problem of the study is formulated by the following question: how does the self-referential metalanguage of philology, which has no direct referents in the external world, ensure the formation of an intersubjectively shared ontology of the CS of the humanities?

The hypothesis is that a stable humanities ontology is the product of discursive construction within a closed system of knowledge. Self-reference, however, is not an obstacle to knowledge, but rather a productive mechanism for it. It is precisely through internal consistency and value orientation that the system creates a "reality effect" recognized by the scientific community.

Results

In the course of systems analysis, we will consider a model in which the philological context is understood as a dynamic, hierarchically organized, and closed system of concepts that independently defines the rules for describing and identifying its objects. Its structure includes three types of concepts. Methodological operator concepts, such as "text," "discourse," and "intertextuality," define the framework of cognitive activity. Subject-based object concepts, such as "genre," "style," and "author," concretize the entities studied within this framework. Evaluative-metadiscursive filter concepts, including "depth," "canon," and "innovation," regulate communication within the community through criteria of significance. The system is immanent, since its objects have no existence independent of it, and anthropocentric, since its concepts are rooted in human bodily and value-based experience. Ontology here does not precede cognition, but rather emerges as its product.

Theoretical modeling of the structure of the CS reveals a tripartite nature in each concept, manifesting three interrelated characteristics. The subject (denotative) characteristic forms the conceptual core of the concept. Functioning as a categorical delimiter, it defines the substantive boundaries that allow for differentiation of the concept from related conceptual entities. The figurative (perceptual-associative) characteristic links the conceptual core with sensory and metaphorical experience, imparting clarity and heuristic productivity to the concept; it is this characteristic that enables the concept's transfer to new cognitive contexts. The value (axiological) characteristic determines the cultural and scientific significance of the concept, regulating its application and setting the evaluative parameters for its functioning in discourse. These characteristics form a dynamic unity: a change in any one of them entails a systemic transformation of the entire concept configuration. Thus, a reassessment of the significance of a phenomenon (an axiological shift) inevitably triggers a restructuring of its imagery, which, in turn, leads to an adjustment of the subject core. Thus, the concept appears not as a static unit, but as a processual formation, continuously constituted in the intense interaction of its three dimensions.

The ontology of the CS is formed through three main mechanisms. The first mechanism is nomination and terminology. Acts of naming, such as "novel," "postmodernism," or "chronotope," do not capture ready-made entities, but rather isolate objects from the continuous flow of cultural experience and assign them boundaries. Thus, the term "lyrical hero" does not describe a given entity, but creates an analytical construct that is then perceived as reality. The second mechanism is intertextual, or intrasystemic, definition. The meaning of a concept is determined not through reference to the external world, but through its relationship with other concepts within the system. The concept of "epic" finds its meaning in opposition to "novel" and "story"; "author" – in dialogue with "reader" and "text." The third mechanism is a metaphorical framework. Deep metaphors that organize thinking, such as «text world,» «language of culture,» «field of discourse,» or «labyrinth of meanings,» implicitly ascribe spatial, agentic, or organismic properties to objects, predetermining the ways in which they are understood.

Next, using metadiscursive analysis, we will analyze the methods of reflection on the conceptual apparatus, value markers, and mechanisms of term legitimization. The self-referentiality of the context manifests itself in three aspects, each with direct epistemological consequences. The first aspect is the recursive coincidence of object and method. The basic concepts of philology are simultaneously its tools and the main objects of study. "Text" is analyzed through other texts that already operate with this concept; "discourse" is studied using discourse analysis methods, which are part of scientific discourse. A vicious circle emerges, in which the system explains itself. The second aspect is the constitutive function of language. Philological entities such as "authorial mask," "cultural code," or "literary fact" emerge and acquire the status of reality in the act of their conceptualization. For example, the boundaries of the phenomenon of "Russian Symbolism" are defined not objectively, but by agreement among the scientific community using a common metalanguage. The third aspect concerns the intrasystemic criteria of validity. The truth of a philological statement is verified not by its correspondence to external reality, but by its coherence with the accepted conceptual framework, its persuasiveness for a community fluent in the same metalanguage, and its productivity—that is, the ability to generate new interpretations within the system's rules. Thus, self-reference is revealed as an immanent feature of philology, generating a rigorous, reflexive model of cognition. Values are essential for stabilizing ontology, where initial value orientations (the Enlightenment ideal of reason, the Romantic cult of genius, etc.) create the basic ontology of the "figure of the author." The emergence of a self-sustaining value system, ontology, and metalanguage facilitates the reproduction of values, while the metalanguage elevates the ontological status of concepts such as "author" and "style.".

To support this theory, we consider the historical evolution of the concepts of "text" and "discourse" in the 20th century, demonstrating the development of the humanities through internal restructuring rather than the simple collection of empirical data. In the classical paradigm, up until the mid-20th century, "text" was viewed as a triadic structure representing a stable, complete work, supported by metaphors such as "book," which emphasized the text's originality.

The emergence of structuralist and poststructuralist theories transformed the concept of "text," expanding it beyond oral and written works to include various sign systems and elements of the social environment. This evolution led to the emergence of dynamic metaphors such as "fabric," "network," and "intertext," reflecting a more interconnected understanding of textuality. The emphasis in literary studies shifted from the uniqueness of the author to the openness of interpretation and the semantic diversity of texts, driven by modern philological concepts. Furthermore, modern digital technologies have given rise to new terms such as "hypertext," "multimodal text," and "digital narrative," signaling further changes in the concept of text. In this regard, the evolution of the concept of "text" illustrates a significant empirical shift in the process of constructing humanities reality through the self-referential movement of metalanguage.

Next, to demonstrate the generality of the proposed model, we examine in detail the historical development of the concept of "discourse," defined in classical linguistics as a sequence of utterances exceeding the volume of a sentence (the subject core). The structuralist turn adds the figurative characteristic of a "network" and a value-based emphasis on the systemic nature of relations. Poststructuralism redefines discourse as a practice constituting social reality, which is accompanied by the metaphor of "power/knowledge" [17; 18]. This transformation cannot be explained by empirical findings, but is well explained by the mechanisms of nomination, intrasystemic definition, and metaphorical framework (Table 1).

Table 1. Evolution of the concept of «discourse»

Period	Subject core	Figurative characteristics	Value characteristics
The ancient feudal stage (discourse as speech)	Discourse is identified with ratio—rational, logically constructed speech, as opposed to intuitive or poetic speech. In scholasticism, it is the movement of thought from premises to conclusion.	Metaphors of the "cursus," "line," and "argumentative chain" dominate. Discourse is a "path-laying" from the known to the unknown.	Logical coherence, clarity, and adherence to the rules of syllogistic are valued. Discourse is an instrument of truth, its legitimacy secured by the authority of reason and tradition.
The system does not yet perceive itself as self-referential; discourse reflects the structure of reality, although an anthropocentric element is embedded, where discourse is seen as the human ability to organize the world.
The linguistic turn (structuralism, 1950s–1960s)	Discourse is understood as "language in action," as an utterance that exceeds the boundaries of a sentence. E. Benveniste [1] introduces a distinction between story (histoire) and discourse (discours) as speech that takes into account the speaker and the listener.	Metaphors of surface, "plane of expression," "system of differences." A shift away from a linear path toward a structural grid.	An emphasis on subjectivity, deixis, and communicative intention. Discourse becomes a field of study for pragmatics, not just syntax and semantics. The value lies in understanding how language constitutes social roles.
A step towards the actualization of self-reference occurs, when discourse is not considered a transparent transmitter of truth, but rather creates the positions of the speaker and listener.
Poststructuralist stage (M. Foucault, [21] 1960–1970s)	Radical Shift. M. Foucault [19] defines discourse as «a practice that systematically shapes the objects of which it speaks.» Discourses are historically variable systems of rules that generate statements that are institutionally fixed and loaded with power.	Metaphors of "apparatus," "archive," "dispositif," "field," and "strategy." Discourse is not a line, but a force field of the struggle of truths, a practice constituting social reality [19] with the metaphor of "power/knowledge.".	The goal is demystification, exposing the power hidden in "natural" ways of speaking. The value lies in the critique of the humanities, in the deconstruction of the subject. Discourse no longer belongs to man; man is an effect of discourse.
The self-referential model reaches its apogee of application; discourse describes objects that, for example, "madness" and "criminality," do not exist prior to the emergence of discourse. Ontology is entirely constituted within discursive practice.
Discourse analysis (1970s–1990s T. van Dijk, N. Fairclough)	Discourse is understood as a multidimensional phenomenon, Text, conversation, social practice, cognitive process. Emphasis on the empirical analysis of real texts (media, politics, online discourse, teaching).	Metaphors of "representation," "structure," "strategy," and "ideological square" emerge. Metaphors of "spiral" and "cycle" (the reproduction of power through discourse) emerge.	Value lies in practical use Exposing manipulation, racism, and gender inequality. Discourse analysis becomes a tool of social critique. The criterion of truth is not correspondence to reality, but explanatory power and emancipatory potential.

The developed model can be applied in several fields. In philological methodology, it provides researchers with tools for critical self-analysis of their own metalanguage. Understanding that the concepts used carry a value load and construct their subject matter enhances the reflexivity and argumentation of scholarly work. In scholarly communication, the model helps diagnose the causes of terminological disagreements. Debates over the concepts of "intertextuality" vs. "dialogism" or "narrative" vs. "storytelling" appear not as a search for a single correct term, but as a conflict between various value and figurative emphases within the context of social science. Clarifying these emphases facilitates mutual understanding between scholarly schools.

The model under discussion changes the approach to teaching humanities disciplines, emphasizing the critical understanding of professional concepts, their history, and axiological load in the critique of public discourses. Furthermore, it allows for an analysis of how philological concepts such as "cultural code," "national identity," or "spiritual bonds" are co-opted by the media and politics, losing their analytical complexity and beginning to construct simplified, often ideological, versions of reality. In conjunction with digital humanities, the model demonstrates that data, whether text corpora or graphs, become humanities knowledge only when interpreted through the lens of the digital humanities; and the translation of concepts such as "style" or "genre" into formalized parameters is not a neutral operation, but an act of ontologization that carries the risk of reducing value-laden concepts to measurable but impoverished constructs.

Discussion

The proposed approach raises a number of important questions that require discussion. The first concerns the issue of arbitrariness and relativism: does the case of self-reference imply equal possibility for any interpretation? To address this objection, the concept of a constraining environment is introduced into the model. For philology, such an environment is the materiality of the text, its linguistic and compositional givenness, as well as the tradition of its readings, that is, the history of interpretations. The CS is operationally closed, but is forced to adapt to these external influences, so the ontology it generates is not arbitrary, but historically and communicatively conditioned.

The second question concerns the influence of power and ideology. The value components of philological concepts, such as the notion of "national literature," are not formed in isolation, but rather in resonance with broader social and political discourses. The model describes this process as the selective perception of external impulses and their transformation into internal categories, with a critical analysis of the ideological implications of humanities knowledge.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates that philological metalanguage functions as a dynamic, hierarchical, self-referential system, creating a stable humanities ontology without external references. Humanities objects in the conceptual sphere are formed through nomination, intertextual definitions, and metaphorical frameworks, with axiological completeness being essential. The interaction of objective, figurative, and value-based characteristics of concepts contributes to both the stability and evolution of philological concepts. Limitations related to the essentiality of the text and interpretive traditions reduce potential interpretative distortions, allowing for a critical analysis of ideological influence on scientific theory. Thus, philology emerges as an active communicative system, constructively shaping its subject matter and opening up new opportunities for the application of metatheoretical reflection within the humanities.

Literature

1. Benveniste E. General linguistics / edited by Yu.S. Stepanov; translated from French. Moscow: Progress, 1974. 448 p.
2. Gutovskaya M.S. Metaphorical systematization of the metalinguistic sphere in Russian and English languages // Foreign languages in higher education. 2025. No. 2(73). P. 56–66.
3. Ivanov E.E., Kurash S.B. Metaphor as an object of evaluative metalinguistic reflection in the Internet space // Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics. 2024. No. 4. pp. 46–58. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2024-4-46-58.
4. Ivanyan E.P. Russian Cynological Jargon in Light of Metareflexives Reflecting Linguistic Taste // Philological Sciences. Theoretical and Practical Issues. 2025. Vol. 18. No. 7. Pp. 3117–3127. DOI: 10.30853/phil20250433.
5. Kadachieva H.M., Alieva D.S. Conceptual sphere as a way of structuring cognitive space // Philological sciences. Theoretical and practical issues. 2015. No. 6(48). Part 1. P. 64–66.
6. Kazanskaya E.V. Cognitive-communicative model of immersion of individual concept spheres into a foreign-language group concept sphere // Philological sciences. Theoretical and practical issues. 2015. No. 3(45). Part 1. P. 107–109.
7. Kazanskaya E.V. Semiotic characteristics of the concept sphere in the aspect of scientific communication // Cognitive studies of language. 2025. Issue 1(62): Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Cognitive Linguistics, June 5–7, 2025. Tyumen: Tyumen State University-Press, 2025. Pp. 267–271.
8. Karasik V.I. Language Spiral: Values, Signs, Motives: Monograph. Moscow: Gnosis, 2019. 424 p.
9. Karasik V.I. Language keys. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2007. 520 p.
10. Kravchenko M.A. Metalinguistic reflection in a fiction text: from the object of reflection to the typology of reflexives // SibScript. 2025. Vol. 27. No. 1. Pp. 85–96. DOI: 10.21603/sibscript-2025-27-1-85-96.
11. Kubryakova E.S. Language and knowledge: on the way to gaining knowledge about language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. 560 p.
12. Likhachev D.S. Conceptual sphere of the Russian language // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Series of Literature and Language. 1993. Vol. 52. No. 1. Pp. 3–9.
13. Luhmann N. Introduction to Systems Theory / edited by D. Becker; translated from German by K. Timofeeva. Moscow: Logos, 2007. 360 p.
14. Luhmann N. Social Systems. Outline of the General Theory / translated from German by I.D. Gaziev; edited by N.A. Golovin. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007. 641 p.
15. Ricoeur P. Conflict of Interpretations. Essays on Hermeneutics / translated from French, with introduction and commentary by I.S. Vdovina. Moscow: Academichesky Proekt, 2008. 695 p.
16. Rodionova I.G., Kesina S.V. Metalinguistic reflection in the autobiographical story by V.P. Krapivin «Slavka from Herzen Street» // Russkaya rech. 2025. No. 2. pp. 106–118. DOI: 10.31857/S0131611725020082.
17. Tapilin T.V. Narrative multimodal text as one of the types of multimodal text // Bulletin of Kostroma State University. 2024. Vol. 30. No. 2. Pp. 151–156. DOI: 10.34216/1998-0817-2024-30-2-151-156.
18. Felkina O.A. The Development of Slavic Languages and Metalinguistic Reflection of Their Native Speakers (Based on the Russian and Czech Languages) // Vesnіk Bresckaga ўnіversіtetа. Seryya 3. Fіlalogіya. Pedagogika. Psіkhalogіya. 2025. No. 3. P. 69–75. DOI: 10.63874/2218-029X-2025-3-69-75.
19. Foucault M. Words and things: archeology of the humanities / translated from French; introduction by N.S. Avtonomova. St. Petersburg: A-cad, 1994. 408 p.
20. Heidegger M. Being and Time / translated from German by V.V. Bibikhin. Kharkov: Folio, 2003. 503, [9] p.

References

1. Benveniste E. General Linguistics / ed. Yu.S. Stepanova; trans. s fr. Moscow: Progress, 1974. 448 p.
2. Gutovskaya MS Metaphorical systematization of the metalinguistic sphere in Russian and English. Foreign Languages in Higher Education, 2025, no. 2(73), pp. 56–66.
3. Ivanov EE, Kurash SB Metaphor as an object of evaluative metalinguistic reflection in the Internet space. Actual problems of philology and pedagogical linguistics, 2024, no. 4, pp. 46–58. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2024-4-46-58.
4. Ivanyan EP Russian cynological zhargon in the light of metareflections reflecting linguistic taste. Philological sciences. Issues of theory and practice, 2025, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 3117–3127. DOI: 10.30853/phil20250433.
5. Kadachieva Kh.M., Alieva D.S. Conceptosphere as a way of structuring cognitive space. Philological sciences. Issues of theory and practice, 2015, no. 6(48), part 1, pp. 64–66.
6. Kazanskaya E.V. Cognitive-communicative model of immersion of individual concept spheres into a foreign-language group concept sphere. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2015, no. 3(45), part 1, pp. 107–109.
7. Kazanskaya E. V. Semiotic characteristics of the conceptosphere in terms of scientific communication. Cognitive studies of language, 2025, iss. 1(62): Proceedings of the International scientific conference on cognitive linguistics, June 5–7, 2025. Tyumen: Tyumen State University Press, 2025, pp. 267–271.
8. Karasik VI Language spiral: values, signs, motives: monograph. Moscow: Gnozis, 2019. 424 p.
9. Karasik VI Language Keys. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2007. 520 p.
10. Kravchenko M. A. Metalinguistic reflection in literary texts: from the object of reflection to the typology of reflexes. SibSkript, 2025, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 85–96. DOI: 10.21603/sibscript-2025-27-1-85-96.
11. Kubryakova E. S. Language and knowledge: on the way to gaining knowledge about language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. 560 p.
12. Likhachev DS Conceptosphere of the Russian language. Izvestiya of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Series of Literature and Language, 1993, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 3–9.
13. Luhmann N. Introduction to Systems Theory / ed. D. Bekker; trans. from German K. Timofeevoy. Moscow: Logos, 2007. 360 p.
14. Luhmann N. Social Systems. An Essay on the General Theory / trans. from German by I. D. Gazieva; edited by N. A. Golovina. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007. 641 p.
15. Riker P. Conflict of interpretations. Essays on German language / trans. from French, vstup. st. i komment. IS Vdovinoy. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt, 2008. 695 p.
16. Rodionova IG, Kezina SV Metalinguistic reflection in the autobiographical story of V. P. Krapivin «Slavka s ulitsy Gertsena». Russkaya rech’, 2025, no. 2, pp. 106–118. DOI: 10.31857/S0131611725020082.
17. Tapilin TV Narrative multimodal text as one of the types of multimodal text. Bulletin of Kostroma State University, 2024, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 151–156. DOI: 10.34216/1998-0817-2024-30-2-151-156.
18. Fel'kina OA Razvitie Slavyanskikh yazykov i meta-linguistic reflexiya ikh nositeley (na materiale russkogo i cheshskogo yazykov). Vesnіk Brestskaga ўnіversіteta. Seryya 3. Fіlalogіya. Pedagogіka. Psіkhalogіya, 2025, no. 3, pp. 69–75. DOI: 10.63874/2218-029X-2025-3-69-75.
19. Foucault M. Words and things: archaeology of humanitarian sciences / trans. from French; vstup. st. NS Avtonomovoy. St. Petersburg: A-cad, 1994. 408 p.
20. Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya / per. s nem. VV Bibikhina. Kharkov: Folio, 2003. 503, [9] p.