This article is dedicated to the analysis of linguistic mechanisms for the formation of national self-consciousness in Russia and China, realized through vocabulary that reflects mental and cultural values. The focus is on lexical units that contribute to the creation and maintenance of national identity while simultaneously performing ideological and emotional functions. Key conceptual fields are examined: "collectivism," "sobornost," and "state" in the Russian tradition, along with their functional counterparts in Chinese culture: "jia" (family), "li" (ritual), and "guo" (state). The study relies on materials from V.V. Kolesov's "Dictionary of Russian Mentality," Confucian texts, and other cultural and linguistic sources that embody images of collective memory, spirituality, and state ideology. Special attention is given to the differences in the lexical realization of collectivist values: the Russian tradition is characterized by emotional saturation and an emphasis on spiritual-moral unity, while the Chinese tradition features strict hierarchical organization and ritual orderliness. The paper employs comparative analysis, linguocultural analysis, and discursive analysis, as well as etymological breakdown and analysis of phraseological expressions and proverbs that reflect mental attitudes. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive comparison of mentally oriented vocabulary from the two cultures as a strategic resource for the formation of national identity. Common features and differences in linguistic mechanisms have been identified: in both cultures, language strengthens collectivist values; however, in Russia, they are conveyed through emotionally charged images ("communitarianism," "sobornost"), while in China, they are expressed through ritual-normative constructions ("jia," "li," "guo"). It is demonstrated that the historical dynamics of these concepts show the persistence of collectivist attitudes despite socio-political transformations, as well as their adaptation to contemporary conditions. The author argues that the preservation of these attitudes in the context of globalization ensures the maintenance of cultural identity and serves as a basis for national cohesion. The results can be used in sociolinguistics, cultural studies, and intercultural communication, as well as in the development of educational and integration programs.
Dandan Yang (Fri,) studied this question.