Typology of mythopoetic units by their source of origin

In contemporary literary studies, the interplay between myth and literature remains a persistent focus, although existing classifications of mythopoetic elements confront a methodological dilemma: traditional taxonomies rely either on thematic or structural frameworks, whereas 20th- and 21st-century texts often exhibit outwardly similar mythopoetic units with divergent origins. This study proposes a novel typology of mythopoetic image-generating mechanisms, analyzing them through the lens of their dominant source of activation and linguistic expression. The primary objective is to develop a classification system grounded not in thematic or structural roles but in the genesis of mythopoetic meaning, while identifying stable linguistic markers for each category. Three key types are distinguished: mythological – deriving from archaic myths and rituals; cultural-historical – emerging from the mythologization of historical events, figures, and cultural artifacts; archetypal – materializing universal structures of the collective unconscious (à la Jungian theory). Methodologically, the study synthesizes comparative-historical, structural-semiotic, psychoanalytical, and cultural-historical approaches to interrogate these phenomena. The research employed a multi-phase analytical framework on a corpus of 38 literary texts spanning the 19th to 21st centuries. The study systematically proceeded through a) fragmentation – extracting passages containing mythopoetic element; b) source analysis, pinpointing the primary origin underlying these elements; c) verification, ensuring the validity and coherence of the selected fragments; and d) comparative frequency analysis, mapping the distribution and density of mythopoetic markers across distinct text types. The novelty of the study lies in operationalizing the distinctions between archetypal, mythological, and cultural-historical mythopoetics via formally verifiable criteria: lexical (onomastic density, archetypal vocabulary); syntactic (repetition, parallelism, rhythmic organization), and textual (allusions, intertextuality, and recurring narrative patterns). Unlike prior scholarship that primarily contrasted substantive differences, this work translates theoretical distinctions into empirical, textually anchored criteria, enabling objective classification. The analysis clarifies the heterogeneity of mythopoetic phenomena across literary epochs, refines descriptions of their literary specificity, and establishes a methodological toolkit for cross-epochal study. The proposed framework is broadly applicable, from classical to postmodern texts, facilitating systematic comparisons of mythopoetic strategies in diverse corpora

Germanic languages · Lexicalization · Mythology · Novelty · Terminology · Thematic structure · Typology · Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies · Narrative Theory and Analysis · Themes in Literature Analysis