Few Western scholars are likely to be aware that behind the noun linguoculturology and the adjective linguocultur ological lie realities they may not be entirely familiar with. Most will no doubt unhesitatingly assume that the labels in question are no more than a different way of referring to what, in Western Europe, the Americas, and Australia / New Zealand, is called cultural linguistics . Yet, what we are witnessing here is anything but terminological variation . It is terminological indifference of a kind that is common in most areas of scholarly activity, not in the least among linguists, many of whom use identical terms for different purposes, and different terms for identical purposes, thereby stifling progress instead of inviting dialogue, and promoting indifference rather than engaging in collaborative efforts. Mizin and Korostenski (2019) take the translators of two recent papers to task for the kind of terminological indifference referred to above. Both Sharifian (2015) and Peeters (2017) were originally written in English and then translated into Russian to draw the attention of post-Soviet scientists to developments in cultural linguistics in the Western world. I revisit each of these texts, before reaching the conclusion that we need to increase awareness in both directions. The ongoing translation of important programmatic texts from English into Russian and vice versa is crucial, and so is the publication of introductory materials, critical assessments, and terminological dictionaries. They will allow Western linguists to further familiarize themselves with the theoretical underpinnings and empirical findings of linguoculturology, and help post-Soviet science transcend the geographic and ideological area to which it is still largely confined. The publication, in different issues of the 2020 volume of this journal, of revised versions of the four introductory lectures on the Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach I had the pleasure of delivering at Novosibirsk State University in June 2019 will hopefully help achieve some of the cross-fertilization contemporary cultural linguistics so badly needs.

In connection with the increased interest in the topic of patriotism in modern Russia the concept GRAZHDAN-STVENNOST’ ( CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS ) appears most attractive to linguists. The aim of the study is to identify and analyze the features of linguistic representation of the concept CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS in the Russian world view. The study sets out to solve the following issues: to identify the content of the concept CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS and to place it in the Russian world view as well as in the Russian artistic picture of the world based on the material of the Russian Language National Corpus. The following words were found to be related to the concept under study: citizenship, civic, citizen. The analysis of the content of the anthropomorphic axiological concept revealed some features related to a motivating act “citizen”. The conceptual framework was found to include the following features: “property”, “quality”, “sense”, “morality”, “consciousness”, “right”, “obligation”, “duty”, “civil society”, “state”, “patriotism”. “Civilization” and “social status” seem to be archaic conceptual features. On the basis of the studied material, the following value signs of CIVIC CONSCIOUSNESS can be pointed out: “activity”, “will”, “readiness”, “values”, “culture”, “thinking”, “responsibility”, “attitude”, “position”, “role”, “ability”, “consciousness”, “self-consciousness”, “property”, “skill”, “emotions”, “courage”, “principled”, “country”, “activity”, “democracy”, “Russia”. The analysis of the material of the Russian Language National Corpus revealed the following features in the structure of the concept: categorical, evaluative and conceptual figurative features.

The paper deals with the names of some items of material culture presented in the decree on attributes of an escort of the Manchurian governor Hung Taiji for the festive ceremony held in honor of granting him the title ‘Gracious Peaceful Bogdo-Khan’ in 1636. The decree is presented in the written monument “Truthful record about Mongols of the Qing Empire” published in Classic Mongolian in 2013 in Huhe-Hoto (People's Republic of China). It is revealed that naming of a number of objects under study was based on visual perception of their form and acoustical associations their action produced. So, names of such pieces of material culture as sarqalǰi ‘staff mace’, ǰida ‘spear’, etc. are connected with the image ‘something peaked’, baγbur ‘bowl’ with the image ‘something stocky’, longqu ‘bottle’ with the image ‘something big-bellied’, qubing ‘jug’ with the image ‘something narrow (about a neck)’, manǰilγa ‘fringe’ with the image ‘something long, trailing’. Etymologies of the words saγadaγ ‘quiver’ from a preverb * saγa [ tata- ] ‘to snatch out’, manǰilγa ‘fringe’, etc. are presented for the first time. The naming of tuγ ‘banner’ occurred on the basis of acoustical perception of its fluttering. The list contains loanwords from Chinese and Sanskrit. The analysis of the Chinese variants of lexemes showed that in certain cases their meaning is more precise, than that of Mongolian words. Consideration of compound words revealed a similar mechanism of naming process for some other pieces of material culture in Mongolian and Chinese of the 17^th century. In the Chinese variant of the monument the word 撒带 sā dài is a transliteration of the Mongolian word saγadaγ ‘quiver’. It demonstrates the importance of the Mongolian culture in the life of the Manchurian emperors’ Court. Mongolian, in turn, borrows some elements from Chinese which are used as an explanation to the main component of a compound word. So, the consideration of the etymology of the words designating elements of material culture showed some specificity of Mongolian in the way it reflects both real and mental worlds.

The article is concerned with the issue of linguistic specificity of small-sized texts, describing their text structure (also referred to as composition) as well as linguistic properties and characteristics. A cooking recipe may be defined as a specific genre of this text category. In particular, the paper aims to describe semantic structure and linguistic features of the oral cooking recipes of the Russian Germans collected during a dialectal expedition in Krasnoyarsk region, Siberia. Culinary recipes of Russian Germans may be regarded as an evidence of the preservation of their linguo-culture, traditions and ethnic identity because they reflect a number of sociocultural parameters, societal and individual values. Sociocultural parameters make it possible to regard the text of the cooking recipe as a linguocultural phenomenon. The basis of the study is a field method: digital audio recordings of the recipe texts from German dialectal informants and a comprehensive analysis thereof as compared with the recipes found in the published books. For the graphic fixation of ‘dialectal’ recipes (that is in the transcripts) which combine features of the West German and East Middle German dialects the author used the spelling close to the norms of the standard German language. As a result of the study, certain distinctive textual and linguistic features of culinary recipes were established. As far as the text and semantic structure of the oral ‘dialectal’ recipe is concerned it is normal to omit the ingredients section, information about the duration of cooking. They don’t include any clarifications or parts equivalent to subtitles and footnotes of the standard written recipes. At the phonetic, morphological, syntactic, and lexical levels culinary recipes possess typical colloquial and dialect features of the language of Russian Germans. The analysis of the recipes allowed to define the nature of changes in their linguistic components, to identify discrepancies between the recipes in the German standard language and those recorded in Krasnoyarsk region, Siberia at all linguistic levels. In addition, it became possible to discover in the dialectal material some cultural borrowings as well as to determine the linguistic impact of the other languages encountered by the informants during their life in Russia and earlier. The influence of the Russian language is exemplified among others in the mixing of elements of the Russian and German syntax and, in particular, violation of the typically German sentence framework.

One of the reasons for changes in translation of such sentences, as it seems to us, is the fact that standard characterization schemes in Russian and German have different semantic potentials, that is, meanings that can be implicitly represented in the characterization structure of one language cannot be rendered by a similar structure in another. The purpose of this contrastive study is therefore to find out how identical the characterization structures in Russian and German are from the point of view of semantic potential. To achieve this goal, we analyze the causes of changes in rendering attributive characterization in translation. We apply a structural-semantic approach in a comparative examination of Russian and German proposals for qualitative characterization. The novelty of the study is that we trace the process of this semantics’ formation in their non-standard structures, as well as in how expressivity is realized or maintained in the reviewed sentences. In the study, we used the method of continuous sampling of sentences and their translations from the Russian Language National Corpus. The structural-semiotic method allowed us to trace the process of characterization semantics formation in structures, which are usually used to express other meanings. Contextual and comparative methods allowed us to identify the causes of changes in the translation, and the method of quantitative analysis - the frequency of translation transformations. Using interlinear and reverse translations, differences in the structure and semantics of the original and translated sentences were shown. We found that the proposition of attributive characterization is expressed in a non-standard way in translations only in a small percentage of instances, which is mainly due to the difference in the stylistic norms of languages, and in some cases, to the difference in the semantic potential of the characterization structure. In particular cases, the Russian structure is capable of implicitly expressing the metaphor of the feature presented in it, which in the German translation requires explication, and, accordingly, a change in the way of its rendering. Along with the semantic changes accompanying the substitution of the structure, we revealed a decrease in the categorization of the attribute, creation of a more “lively” image, intensification of an attribute, strengthening of its static character, putting the reader closer to the point of view of the narrator.

This article analyses methodology of compiling Russian general wordlists and lexical minima for teaching Russian for specific purposes. The study systematizes three approaches: linguo-didactic, linguo-statistical, and corpus-based. The article also describes the process and results of applying all the three methods to the development of a lexical minimum based on political science corpus. Methodological analysis comprises general word lists for the Russian State Standard Exam (TRKI), the System of lexical minima by V. V. Morkovkin, and the Frequency dictionary of the Russian language for foreigners, created by S. A. Sharov as a part of the KELLY project, as well as special lexical minima for medicine, robotics, nuclear energy, and mathematics. It has been revealed that the core element in the development of a discipline-specific lexical minimum is minimization that involves a set of principles determining the optimal length of the list and lexeme selection. For the Russian general word lists, the most common principles of minimization are methodical expediency (“relevance” of the word at each level), quantitative metrics, including absolute and relative frequencies, the word rank, and a coverage index, showing the percentage of text that every lexeme covers. The article reports the results of combining the quantitative methods, corpus-based analysis, and didactic principles to apply to the development of the lexical minimum based on political science textbooks. The core index, defining the length of this list, was coverage which revealed that 8,237 most frequent lexemes cover 98 % of the whole corpus. The linguo-didactic analysis showed that 1, 000 most frequent lexemes, without stop-words, cover 50 % of this corpus, and therefore this wordlist allows foreign learners to understand about a half of the corpus. After reaching the point of 3,500 of the most frequent words, the coverage index grows insignificantly, and this number can be considered to be a target in teaching and learning discipline-specific vocabulary. It is notable that the recommended lexical minimum, comprising 1,000-3,500 of the most frequent words, is only a starting point for reading comprehension of texts for professionals also referred to as ‘special’ texts. Their deeper and effective understanding also involves competence in rhetoric strategies and text structure.

The paper dwells on the possibility of using a blog as a source of recent English loanwords and their new meanings in the modern Russian language. In the frame of researching internet discourse of fashion, the article is focusing on studying blogs as a resource of finding new Anglicisms and their meanings, which are not included into dictionaries. The modern Russian language tends to intensify the process of borrowing English lexical units and their semantics, which brings about the need of their lexicographic description. In Russia, the most detailed and well-developed source of English loanwords is the Dictionary of Anglicisms of the Russian Language composed by A. I. Dyakov who included there both the loanwords and derived from them neologisms. Information technologies development and introduction of new platforms for Internet communication boost the assimilation of English loanwords and their meanings and necessitate familiarizing with modern resources for searching, researching and fixation of Anglicisms. In this work, blogs on fashion stand for the resource allocated on the «LiveJournal» platform. Given the intensification of both Anglicisms and their new semantics borrowing, the research is targeting not only on recent English loanwords study, but on the assimilated ones as well. The analysis of 280 blog texts from six blogs of 2014-2018 in Russian fashion discourse revealed a group of old English loanwords that show new meanings, not included into the Dictionary . Another finding is a group of recent derivatives, which demonstrate the efficiency of Russian word formation patterns and confirm the ability of the Russian language to assimilate foreign words by extending their stylistic and semantic potential by means of Russian affixation. This result allows us to conclude that a blog is a rich resource for researching borrowings. The prospect of allocating new loanwords and their derivatives in a specific discourse provides an opportunity for deeper understanding of the loanwords semantic assimilation by the Russian language.

The article deals with the rare and uncommon vocabulary used in contemporary French political discourse. Nowadays discourse studies are becoming increasingly complex and multidimensional. Political discourse is an essential component of everyday political life. The choice of research question is determined by its contribution to cross-cultural communication, as well as by the lack of discursive explorations regarding the rare and uncommon vocabulary. Our hypothesis is that this type of lexis would have some pragmatic motivation and may serve to realize a certain number of communication tasks. Thus, our research aims to describe the collected samples and reveal their pragmatic potential. Discursive analysis coupled with frequency evaluation shapes a methodological framework for our study. The total number of lexical samples is 32 units coming from public speeches, debates and interviews of contemporary French politicians. We have checked the frequency profile of all collected observations on the Google Books French Corpus Ngram Viewer. In order to test the relevance of the corpus and optimize the interpretation of results, we have also introduced a «control group», which contain 31 lexical units expectedly present in political lexicon. Our analysis shows that the rare and uncommon vocabulary serves various pragmatic goals, such as demonstrating the speaker’s performance, capture the audience's attention, achieving a euphemistic effect and some others. Our research gives us ground to affirm that the pragmatic effects of this type of lexical phenomena are due to its ability to break the functional isomorphism of discourse space. The arising disharmony may be caused by temporary disparity (obsolete words), topical mismatch (special vocabulary) or cultural variance (book words with complex semantics, little-known words or constructions, regional and foreign language borrowings). In general, our research leads us to conclude that the rare and uncommon vocabulary possess diverse pragmatic functions, which present an undoubted interest in further research.

The article reviews different perspectives concerning the status, origin and functions of double translations in European cultural space throughout the period. The term double translation here refers to the translation of one word with two (rarely more) lexemes connected with a conjunction or another linking word. This technique was universal across medieval translation schools, whatever their geographic origin. However, only particular schools or individual translators have been studied in terms of this technique so far, so the author aims to summarize the findings, delineate some controversial issues in the domain under consideration and place the findings in a common perspective. The controversial issues comprise (but are not limited by) the causes of their emergence in translated texts (from almost accidental fixation of the translator’s hesitation to the conscious decision to apply two different methods of translation based on specific philosophy of language). Another widely discussed question is the status of the words in such a pair - whether they were regarded as synonyms or had another status. One more question that causes discussion is their functions in the text, namely whether they were a rhetorical device or a certain means of semantic differentiation. The author of the article supposes that double translation should be considered dynamically and such chronological consideration makes it possible to argue that double translations first appeared to convey the whole range of meanings of a certain word enabling the reader to make their own choice concerning the exact meaning of the word in each particular context. As for the philosophical or theological background of the technique (be it language philosophy of St. Augustine or the theory of images developed by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite) sometimes assumed to have been intentionally realized by medieval translators, it is hard to verify such claims as the utterances (Prefaces) of the medieval translators themselves hardly mention (with the possible exception of Praefatio Brixiana) either the technique or its presumed theological grounds. Moreover, word pairs (hendyadis) had been used as a rhetorical device both in the literary tradition and the national epic poetry of many European countries. This rhetorical device was widely used for emphasis, so when double translation actually lost its semantic function, it was retained by languages as set phrases or a purely stylistic device.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the existing ideas about Russian literature in Britain at the end of the 19^th and the first half of the 20^th centuries. A brief overview of the advancement of works by Russian classics among British readers is given. The spread of Russian literature in Britain had been progressing slowly for a long time due to the difficulty in translation and the lack of interest in Russia and Russian culture. However, at the end of the 19^th and the first half of the 20^th centuries, the situation changed in the British literary community. This period saw a plethora of publications of translations of Russian fiction that were accomplished by professional translators, Slavonic scholars, and writers. These translations appeared in periodicals and other print formats. The article provides an overview of the translation of works of F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Chekhov, who have become the most understandable and accessible to the English mentality. It happened thanks to such outstanding translators as C. Garnett, Aylmer and Louise Maude, S. S. Koteliansky (who worked in collaboration with V. Woolf, J. M. Murry), R. E. C. Long and others. Having gained access to high-quality translations of Russian classics, British writers began to study their works in greater detail. The British saw the influence of English and European writers (W. Shakespeare, Ch. Dickens, J.-J. Rousseau, J. W. Goethe, V. Hugo, etc.), e.g., in F. M. Dostoevsky’s works. However, later the Russian influence could also be felt in the Western novel, modifying it. There is an opinion that the works of A. P. Chekhov, translated by Garnett, changed the English short story, making it exactly as we know it. V. Woolf, J. Joyce, B. Shaw, J. Galsworthy, A. Bennett and others admired the depth, style, and language of Russian writers. Translation of works of great Russian authors facilitated the flow of information about Russia and expanded the Brit’s view on the country and its people. It once again confirms the existence of mutual cultural exchange between the two countries from a historical perspective. It can be argued that, despite all the complexities of the relationship, the mutual influence of the literatures of the two countries is quite significant.

In the second decade of the 21^st century Russian translation studies are receiving a fresh impetus. Amid attempts the culture-oriented translatology undertakes to disown principles of the linguistic approach that traces its origin to R. Jakobson’s works, Russian scholars are first and foremost keen on ensuring consistency with methodology of the Soviet and French Canadian school (J.-P. Vinay, J. Darbelnet, G. Mounin, Y. I. Retsker, A. V. Fedorov, E. G. Etkind, etc.) while revisiting existing approaches to translation and recognizing a huge impact the culture has on it. In our opinion, their goal is to develop some universally applicable paradigm, a sort of “framework” theory, that can explain an interaction of all old and new factors in an act of intercultural mediation by means of translation without casting doubt upon translation as such given it has been proving itself as a practice for many centuries. The focus of recent theoretical research is gradually shifted from linguistic reasoning per se towards an in-depth analysis of counterproductive ideas and factors of linguistic and literature studies approaches in the development of the Russian translatology (R. R. Chaykovskiy), discourse aspect of translation within the framework of a communication situation that allows of taking into account all formants of the latter, including the goal and strategy of translation as well as tactics of its implementation (V. V. Sdobnikov), analysis of the transition discourse in a self-organizing translation space forming the translator’s harmonious outlook aimed at harmonizing meanings of interacting languages and cultures (L. V. Kushnina), in-depth analysis of audiovisual translation peculiarities within the process-oriented translation approach that indisputably requires conveying an image-sense of the film dialogue (V. E. Gorshkova), representation of translation as a discourse and communication model facilitating creation of a discourse dossier as a basis for a translation strategy development as exemplified by an institutional discourse (T. A. Volkova), consideration of ways the verbal and cogitative process and translator’s understanding take their course in the mono- and cross-cultural communication (P. P. Dashinimaeva), development of a systemological transdisciplinary model of translation (N. K. Garbovskiy). All these studies implicitly or explicitly touch upon the hermeneutic aspect of translation, a deep philosophical rationale of which has been given in a monograph by E. N. Mishkurov who interprets it as “a hermeneutical turn” and undertakes a critical analysis of fundamental works by F. Schleiermacher, H.-G. Gadamer, W. Benjamin, G. Steiner, P. Ricoeur and other western philosophers as well those by Russian scholars. He postulates that, within a proposed hermeneutic paradigm of translation (HPT), a hermeneutic-translation methodological standard (HTMS) is created as a transdisciplinary interlingual “mental generative” model of translation mediation under the principle of “hermeneutic circle / hermeneutic spiral”. An “algorithm” of the model described as a standard one presupposes that there must be four stages in it: pre-understanding, understanding, interpretation and translator’s decision. The latter is regarded as a stage where phenomenological reduction of interpretation of meanings taking place at the three previous stages is completed. Thus, translations activity is a development and one of the forms of philosophical and hermeneutical treatment of discourse phenomena that considers interpretation as its main tool. E. N. Mishkurov believes that the use of the above mentioned standard allows us to take into account all classic and innovative translation models providing for a “discourse equivalent and pragmatically adequate” version when dealing with different types of texts, their genres, and particularly when translating contexts that cannot be re-expressed by means of regular translation correspondences. The author’s ideas are backed up by examples in Russian, English, French and Arabic.