The problems of linguoculturology discussed on the pages of the “Russian Language Studies” journal

Cover Page


The article presents a review of linguocultural materials published in recent years in the scientific journal “Russian Language Studies” (in the past it was called “The Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching”). The author concentrates on the concept of “linguoculturology”, its origin, development and the main approaches to its study. The analysis of the materials published in the journal makes it possible to focus on the articles dealing with the comparative, cognitive, applied linguoculturology, linguoculturology of ethnos and subethnos. The author underlines the importance of the linguocultural approach to the analysis of the significance of the cultural code, and the specific features of the national verbalization related to the vision of the world around the linguistic personality. A number of publications deal with applied linguoculturology that is somehow connected with the culture-oriented linguistics. The author believes that it is reasonable to use a linguocultural approach in the process of writing textbooks for bilingual students and in the study of linguistic units of different levels. Additionally, this approach can help researchers identify the place and role of the Russian language in linguoculturology. The author argues that the materials presented in the journal cover a wide range of linguocultural studies and enrich linguoculturology from the point of view of theory and practice.

Full Text

The problem of correlation, interconnection, mutual influence of language and culture, a cultural phenomenon in the language, has a general scientific value in linguistics and, in fact, is interdisciplinary. Therefore, linguoculturology plays a significant role in the modern research. It appeared in the 90-s of the 20th century as a result of the attempts to integrate culturology, cultureoriented linguistics and linguistics. It appeared thanks to the interest in the language and culture interaction. A language is seen not only as a means of communication, but also as one of the most important cultural codes of the nation. This approach was developed by Heraclitus of Ephesus and it was also used in the scientific works by J.A. Comenius, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and A. Potebnja. In addition, it was carefully studied by E. Sapir, B. Whorf, L.V. Shcherba, members of the Prague Linguistic Circle and other scientists. The term “linguoculturology” came into use thanks to the scientific works by V.V. Vorobyev, N.D. Arutyunova, Y.S. Stepanov, V.T. Klokov, V.A. Maslova, V.I. Karasik, V.N. Teliya, N.F. Alefirenko, V. Avramova, I.G. Olshansky, V.M. Shaklein, E.E. Yurkov, E.N. Zinovieva, G.V. Tokarev, V.I. Tkhorik, N.Y. Fanyan, A.S. Mamontov, R.G. Tirado, A.A. Gorodetskaya, V.V. Krasnykh, A.G. Khrolenko. The theoretical basis of the modern linguoculturology was created by V.V. Vorobyev. The development of linguoculturology was significantly influenced by the work that is well-known to the scientific community - “Language and Culture: Linguistic Studies in Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language”. It was written by E.M. Vereshchagin and 1. Kostomarov (Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1990). It was first published in 1973, and then it was republished several times and became a basis for this new direction. In 1980 these authors published “Linguistic and Cultural Theory of the Word” (Vereshchagin, Kostomarov, 1980), and in their research they also touched upon the problems of linguoculturology. According to Y.A. Belchikov, one of the topical problems of modern linguoculturology is connected with the search for mechanisms of interaction between language and culture, because “language and culture have a common humanistic basis” (Belchikov, 2009: 7). The linguocultural direction appeared thanks to the desire to comprehend the linguocultural phenomenon of the language and culture as one of the forms of existence of a linguistic personality in the surrounding linguistic culture space, where the language functions as some kind of interpreter not only of the national culture but of the entire world culture. Such multidimensional modeling of reality in the language should become the main subject of linguoculturology, which, in turn, can disintegrate into a number of directions: § cognitive-semiological linguoculturology (studying the properties of linguistic signs and units reflecting the results of the emotional and intellectual activity of the communicant); § historical linguoculturology of the text (analysis of the national and world linguoculture through the prism of the laws of the development of culture in the broad sense of the term); § historical and typological linguoculturology (studying the linguocultural signs of stadiality in the development of linguocultures); § comparative linguoculturology (aiming to solve pragmatic problems); § cognitive linguoculturology (the main focus is on the basic units of culture and linguoculture. These units are included in the cognitive basis); § linguoculturology of a separate social group, ethnos, subethnos in a certain culturally significant period of time (studying a particular linguocultural situation); § applied linguoculturology (it is mainly related to the educational process and teaching the Russian language to foreign students). Each of these areas should be studied separately. It is confirmed by recent publications in scientific periodicals. In his article “Linguocultural studies” V.A. Fedosov distinguishes two approaches to linguocultural research: from language to culture and from culture to language (Fedosov, 2015). The author argues that the first approach is related to scientific linguoculturology, and the second approach is related to linguoculturological studies. The author considers these approaches in reference to the description of linguoculturology and raises a question if one should start with culturology or with linguistics - with the language. Both approaches are admissible: “...the subject of linguistics (language)..., expresses culturological concepts. Culturology, therefore, precedes linguistics” (Fedosov, 2015: 35). If you give preference to linguistics, then “it is necessary to begin not with the whole language, but with the part related to expressing concepts - it is reasonable to start with vocabulary” (Fedosov, 2015: 35). The work in the spheres of scientific linguoculturology (Maslova, 2001, 2010) and linguoculturological studies (including the study of the Russian language) should start with the vocabulary reflecting the national and cultural character. At the same time the researcher expresses an interesting, perhaps a controversial idea related to the fact that “in the language there are not only words (and phraseological units), but also texts, sentences, grammatical units, etc., which also reflect cultural values” (Fedosov, 2015: 35). Moreover, if you start with the vocabulary, it is very difficult to deal with the other linguistic levels in the process of the linguoculturological analysis. At the same time, a linguistic and cultural analysis has a monatomic and non-systemic character (Fedosov, 2015: 35). A similar idea is expressed by A.T. Khrolenko: “The effectiveness of the methodology is reduced because of a certain atomicity and treating the word as an autonomous entity” (Khrolenko, 2005: 137). As a result, the author tends to think that linguoculturology should first of all be described from the culturological point of view, where “linguistics expressing cultural concepts is manifested in all its aspects (and not only in the aspect of vocabulary)” (Fedosov, 2015: 35). In 2015-2017 the scientific journal “The Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching”) published the articles dealing with linguoculturology and touching upon the problems of comparative, cognitive linguoculturology, linguoculturology of ethnos, subethnos, etc. For example, in his article “Concept FATE in Russian and Arab linguistic cultures” V.F. Ibragim analyzes paroemia and concludes that there is a general, passive approach to this concept, as “people with Russian mentality fight against fate, even if it is a useless struggle, whereas Arabs put up with their fate” (Ibragim, 2015: 168). In her article “Peculiarities of humor in Basque linguoculture” Y.V. Fernandez Sanchez (Fernandes Sanchez, 2016) emphasizes that “it is extremely important to learn the Basque linguoculture, since the anthropological and linguistic features of this ethnos have not been studied enough, and therefore there are a lot of things to research” (Fernandes Sanches, 2016: 119). Working in this direction, Zh.V. Kurguzenkova examines the emotionally colored features of the semantics of phraseological units that conceptualize female beauty in English linguistic culture from the point of view of the Russian language tradition. According to the author, “the analysis of the semantics of phraseological units of the English language helps to make a conclusion that despite all the differences in the discourses of modern English and Russian cultures, the conceptualization strategies in this area are of a similar character” (Kurguzenkova, 2016: 97). Additionally, Zh.V. Kurguzenkova carries out a linguistic and cultural analysis of French and Russian phraseological units related to gender, in particular, in reference to the women of loose morals (Kurguzenkova, 2015). The article deals with the specificity of these phraseological units. The author argues that the conceptual component of this type of woman makes us see that “the two nations have a similar attitude to the nominated concept, since both French and Russian phraseological units meaning courtesan are of a negative character” (Kurguzenkova, 2015: 65). In her article “Lexico-semantic classification of English and Ukrainian secondary colour terms: linguoculturological aspect” O.A. Kudria studies the linguistic and cultural specifics and individual features of the secondary color terms and identifies both similar and distinguishing features. The author concludes that this results from the “cultural peculiarities of conceptualization of the colour space of ethnoses. These peculiarities are related to the differences in the linguistic views of the world, to the specific features of the national world view” (Kudria, 2015: 58). A.N. Gritsenko wrote an article dealing with functional types of metaphors referring to sports in Russian and English discourse. The author analyzes the features of emotional metaphors. The author underlines the necessity to distinguish the nominative, representative and cognitive functions of metaphors. It is important to note that metaphors can have semantic components, implying “vivid emotions, and even referring to certain historical and cultural allusions that are sometimes misunderstood” (Gritsenko, 2015: 159). Taking into consideration the linguoculturological and linguodidactic approaches, E.M. Markova focuses on the analysis of the semantics of the culinary culture code in the secondary naming of the Russian and Czech languages. The author notes that dictionaries provide no description of culturally conditioned means of secondary naming, which “allows us to solve such modern fundamental linguistic problems as the description of the linguistic view of the world, identification of peculiarities of the national specific verbalization of the universal picture of the world. This will be reflected in special culturological dictionaries” (Markova, 2017: 162). One of the important conclusions made in the article “Linguo-pragmatic features of non-equivalent idioms of Biblical origin in Russian and English” by E.V. Reunova, is that “idioms of Biblical origin translated word-for-word predominate in Russian” (Reunova, 2015: 78). Cui Liwei devoted her article “Non-equivalent words in the image of China in Russian emigrants’ linguistic culture” to a thematic classification of the equivalent words within verbalization of the semantic “native-foreign” opposition which plays a key role in the emigrants’ culture (Liwei, 2016). One of the features of such vocabulary related to the Chinese linguocultural image is that “these words belong only to the Chinese linguoculture, most of them reflect the reality and they do not belong to any writers. The emigrants of the Far East see only the domestic aspect of China” (Liwei, 2016: 86). This author’s considerations are broadbased as she uses various linguistic means (Liwei, 2015). In her article “Compliment and praise as manifestations of empathy in Spanish” A.V. Shalyukhina touches upon a very interesting topic that can be studied in reference to other linguocultures. It is especially interesting in reference to lowand high-context cultures and to communicants of introvert/extravert types of language personality (Shalyukhina, 2017: 91-102). Using the method of conceptual analysis of the text, E.S. Kornakova studied E.A. Evtushenko’s poems and identified the features of the Soviet reality reflected in the language. The linguocultural analysis revealed the features of the linguistic picture of the poet’s world, where Sovietisms, common parlance, dialecticisms and the words characterizing a new way of life play an important role (Kornakova, 2017: 111). Analyzing the print media of the 1990-s of the last century, A. Lonskaya also tried to reveal the main features of the language characterizing the way of life and the political situation (Lonskaya, 2017). She underlined the fact that the language of the print media of those years reflected not only the internal language processes, but it also showed the changes in the society, for example, the minimization of linguistic styles. As a result, the journalistic style reflected “the process of deconstruction that changed the balance of the standard and expressive speech in the texts” (Lonskaya, 2017: 122). In his article “Cultural and thematic fields WAR and PEACE in Indo-China: ash of four wars” Tran Thanh Tung described the linguocultural image of Vietnam in Russian print media. The author argues that the peculiarities of the linguistic means used to describe the image under consideration are related to the “specificity of the journalistic picture of the world: a subjective character of the beginning (the attitude to the war conflict is expressed by such word combinations as participants in the war, consequences of the war); a documentary character (reference to numerals, anthroponyms, culture-bound terms); expressiveness (a lot of figurative paraphrases)” (Tung, 2015: 124). In her article “Linguocultural and linguapersonal analysis of religious concepts implementations in Russians creolised cartoons” M.A. Belova studies a religious, creolised text from the point of view of the linguoculturology of the text (Belova, 2017). “The use of both types of analysis helps to trace how the elements of the conceptosphere correlate with the culture-bound contrast elements” (Belova, 2017: 199). A number of articles deal with the practical, applied sphere of linguoculturology, mainly associated with culture-oriented linguistics. Thus, in the article “Linguistic and cultural value of archaisms and historisms in teaching Russian as a foreign language” L.M. Koltsova, T.Y. Kudryavtseva and S.A. Churikov underline the necessity to refer to common regional culture as it “allows students not only to develop and improve their speaking skills, but also to enlarge, deepen and systematize their knowledge of the Russian language. It can help them to become more aware of the cultural wealth and the diversity of the culture, including the language culture which is a regional component of the cultural sphere” (Koltsova, Kudryavtseva, Churikov, 2015: 58). The articles also raise the question of using a linguocultural approach to writing textbooks for bilingual students. In particular, G.N. Ipatova and L.K. Serova give the reasons why such textbooks should be published. According to the authors, it will help overcome difficulties, “if we work on the development of the teaching materials taking into account the aspects of linguoculturology, it will help such students to improve their professional skills more effectively; to adapt more quickly to the Russian social and cultural environment and to love the Russian language” (Ipatova, Serova, 2016: 19). The linguocultural approach to the study of linguistic units of different levels is used not only in reference to Russian, but to the other languages as well. Thus, in her article M. Radovich conducts a linguocultural analysis of toponyms and demonyms in Bolivian Spanish. As a result, the author notes that “the toponymy of the country has an obvious connection with the Indian topoforms... anthroponyms contain cultural information that is important for the Bolivians” (Radovich, 2016: 138). In the article “Linguocultural analysis of macrotoponyms in Chile” E.S. Bobylyova also concludes that “many macrotoponyms of Chile were derived from the words from the Indian languages... Macrotoponyms are a popular object of research... they are strongly connected with the culture-oriented linguistics and language picture of the world of native speakers” (Bobylyova, 2016: 65). In the article “Linguistic and cultural details with the word SNOW in Russian poems of 1941-1942” M. Karelova uses a linguocultural approach to conduct research and to identify the national specifics of the words meaning natural phenomena (Karelova, 2015: 46). The same approach is used by I.I. Rubakova in the article “Linguistic and cultural image of war in Russian chastushkas of 1941-1945” (Rubakova, 2015). Professor V.A. Maslova devoted her article “The Russian language through the codes of cultural linguistics” to a very specific and interesting research problem related to the theory of linguoculturology. The article was published in English in the third journal issue in 2016 (Maslova, 2016). The author underlines that currently humanities (and, consequently, scientific research) are focused on applying implicit knowledge, which implies a deeper study of scientific material, analyzing and comparing it with other scientific materials and facts both in synchrony and in diachrony. The author gives her own ideas about what the linguocultural term “code” means and how she understands it. According to the author, linguocultural codes “form a picture of the world and are in the centre of the national cultural space, and at the same time they are a means of structuring cultural knowledge” (Maslova, 2016: 33). L.Y. Buyanova’s article “Phraseology as a cultural cognition code and spiritual heritage of our predecessors” also deals with linguoculturology (Buyanova, 2017). The researcher bases on a broad range of supplementary theoretical material and convincing facts characterizing different linguocultures to show “the cognitive and functionally semantic uniqueness of Russian phraseological units functioning as cultural and confessional markers and operational units that form a Russian phraseological picture of the world” (Buyanova, 2017: 285). Thus, the materials published on the pages of “The Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching”) cover a wide range of linguocultural scientific works; they are aimed to develop this scientific direction theoretically and give a good basis for teachers to apply the theory in the classroom.

About the authors

Rafael Guzman Tirado

University of Granada (Universidad de Granada)

Author for correspondence.
Spain, Granada, 18010, Av. del Hospicio

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Greek and Slavic Philology of the University of Granada. He is a member of MAPRYAL Presidium (International Association of Teachers of the Russian Language and Literature (Spain). He supervises the research group “Slavic Studies, Caucasus Studies and Typology of Languages”


  1. Alefirenko, N.F. (2010). Lingvokul’turologiya. Tsennostno-smyslovoe prostranstvo yazyka [Cultural Linguistic. Value-Semantic Space of Language]. Moscow: Flinta Publ.; Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  2. Avramova, V. (2007). Lingvokul’turologiya [Cultural Linguistic]. Shumen: Episkop Kontstantin Preslavski Publ. (In Russ.)
  3. Bel’chikov, Yu.A. (2009). Yazyk i kul’tura (materialy spetskursa) [Language and Culture (Special Course Materials)]. Moscow: MGU Publ. (In Russ.)
  4. Bobylyova, E.S. (2016). Linguocultural Analysis of Macrotoponyms in Chile. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 61—67. (In Russ.)
  5. Buyanova, L.Y. (2017). Phraseology as a Cultural Cognition Code and Spiritual Heritage of Our Predecessors. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 15 (3), 285—298. (In Russ.)
  6. Cui Liwei. (2015). Linguistic Means of Linguistic and Cultural Image of China in Linguistic Culture of Far East Emigration. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 4, 112—119. (In Russ.)
  7. Cui Liwei. (2016). Non-Equivalent Words in the Image of China in Russian Emigrants’ Linguistic Culture. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 2, 80—88. (In Russ.)
  8. Fernandez Sanchez, Y.V. (2016). Particularities of Humour in Basque Linguoculture. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 119—126. (In Russ.)
  9. Gorodetskaya, L.A. (2009). Lingvokul’tura i lingvokul’turnaya kompetentnost’ [Cultural Linguistic and Cultural Linguistic Competence]. Moscow: KDU Publ. (In Russ.)
  10. Gritsenko, A.N. (2015). Functional Types of Metaphors in Russian and English Sporting Discourse. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 154—160. (In Russ.)
  11. Ibragim, V.F. (2015). Concept “FATE” in Russian and Arab Linguistic Cultures. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 161—170. (In Russ.)
  12. Ipatova, G.N. & Serova, L.K. (2016). Cultural-Linguistic Approach to Creating Educational Materials for Bilingual Students. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 14—20. (In Russ.)
  13. Karelova, M.A. (2015). Linguistic and Cultural Details with the Word “SNOW” in Russian Poems of 1941—1942. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 2, 46—50. (In Russ.)
  14. Koltsova, L.M., Kudryavtseva, T.Yu. & Churikov, S.A. (2015). Linguistic and Cultural Value of Archaisms and Historisms in Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 4, 58—68. (In Russ.)
  15. Kornakova, E.S. (2017). National and Cultural Specifics of Soviet Reality and its Linguistic Reflection in E.A. Evtushenko’s Poetry. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15(1), 103—112. (In Russ.)
  16. Krasnykh, V.V. (2002). Etnopsikholingvistika i lingvokul’turologiya [Ethnopsycholinguistics and Cultural Linguistic]. Moscow: Gnozis Publ. (In Russ.)
  17. Kudria, O.A. (2015). Lexico-Semantic Classification of English and Ukrainian Secondary Colour Terms: Linguoculturological Aspect. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 53—59. (In Russ.)
  18. Kurguzenkova, Zh.V. (2015). Linguistic and Cultural Analysis of Gender Marked Phraseological Units of Phraseosemantic Group Designating Women of Easy Virtue. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 60—66. (In Russ.)
  19. Kurguzenkova, Zh.V. (2016). Conceptualization of Feminine Beauty in English Cultural Worldview. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 97—102. (In Russ.)
  20. Lonskaya, A.Yu. (2017). The Image of Government in 1990s Russian Print Media. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15(1), 113—125. (In Russ.)
  21. Mamontov, A.S., & Mamontov, S.P. (2005). Kul’turologiya [Culturology]. Moscow: Gardariki Publ. (In Russ.)
  22. Markova, E.M. (2017). Culinary Culture Code in the Secondary Naming of the Russian and Czech Languages: Linguistic and Methodological Aspects. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15(2), 152—174. (In Russ.)
  23. Maslova, V.A. (2001). Lingvokul’turologiya: uchebnoe posobie dlya stud. vyssh. ucheb, zavedenii [Cultural Linguistics: textbook for higher educational institutions]. Moscow: Akademiya Publ., 2001. 208 s. (In Russ.)
  24. Maslova, V.A. (2016). The Russian Language through the Codes of Cultural Linguistics. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 3, 27—33.
  25. Ol’shanskii, I.G. (1999). Lingvokul’turologiya: metodologicheskie osnovaniya i bazovye ponyatiya. Yazyk i kul’tura [Cultural Linguistics: Methodological Bases and Basic Concepts. Language and Culture]. 2, Moscow. (In Russ.)
  26. Ol’shanskii, I.G. (2000). Lingvokul’turologiya v kontse XX v.: itogi, tendentsii, perspektivy. Lingvisticheskie issledovaniya v kontse XX v. [Cultural Linguistic Studies at the End of the 20th Century: Results, Trends, Prospects. Linguistic research at the end of the 20th century]. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  27. Radovich, M. (2016). Linguocultural Analysis of Toponyms and Denonyms in Bolivian Spanish. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 4, 133—140. (In Russ.)
  28. Reunova, E. (2015). Linguo-Pragmatic Features of Non-Equivalent Idioms of Biblical Origin in Russian and English. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 1, 73—79. (In Russ.)
  29. Rubakova, I.I. (2015). Linguistic and Cultural Image of War in Russian Chastushkas of 1941—1945. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 2, 51—55. (In Russ.)
  30. Sabitova, Z.K. (2013). Lingvokul’turologiya: uchebnik [Cultural Linguistics: textbook]. Moscow: Flinta Publ.; Nauka Publ. (In Russ.)
  31. Shaklein, V.M., & Mikova, S.S. (2015). Lingvokul’turnoe soderzhanie yazyka [Lingvocultural Content of the Language]. Moscow: RUDN Publ. (In Russ.)
  32. Shalyukhina, A.V. (2017). Compliment and Praise as Manifestations of Empathy in Spanish. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching, 15(1), 91—102. (In Russ.)
  33. Tkhorik, V.I., & Fan’yam, N.Yu. (2016). Lingvokul’turologiya i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya: uchebnoe posobie [Cultural Linguistics and Intercultural Communication: textbook]. Moscow: Gis Publ. (In Russ.)
  34. Tokarev, G.V. (2003). Kontsept kak objekt lingvokul’turologii (na materiale reprezentatsii kontsepta «trud» v russkom yazyke) [The Concept as an Object of Cultural Linguistics (Based on the Representations of the Concept “Labour” in Russian)]. Volgograd: Peremena Publ. (In Russ.)
  35. Tokarev, G.V. (2009). Lingvokul’turologiya: uchebnoe posobie [Cultural Linguistics: textbook]. Tula: TGPU im. L.N. Tolstogo Publ. (In Russ.)
  36. Tran Thanh Tung. (2015). Cultural and Thematic Fields “WAR” and “PEACE” in Indo-China: Ash Of Four Wars. RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 4, 120—125. (In Russ.)
  37. Vereshchagin, E.M., & Kostomarov, V.G (1980). Lingvostranovedcheskaya teoriya slova [Linguistic and Cultural Theory of Words]. Moscow: Russkii yazyk Publ. (In Russ.)
  38. Vereshchagin, E.M., & Kostomarov, V.G. (1990). Yazyk i kul’tura: Lingvostranovedenie v prepodavanii russkogo yazyka kak inostrannogo [Language and Culture: Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language]. Moscow: Russkii yazyk Publ. (In Russ.)
  39. Vorob’ev, V.V. (1997). Lingvokul’turologiya: Teoriya i metody [Cultural Linguistics: Theory and methods]. Moscow: RUDN Publ. (In Russ.)
  40. Vorob’ev, V.V. (2008). Lingvokul’turologiya [Cultural Linguistics]. Moscow: RUDN Publ. (In Russ.) Yurkov, E.E., & Zinov’eva, E.I. (2009). Lingvokul’turologiya: teoriya i praktika [Cultural Linguistics:Theory and Practice]. Saint Petersburg: MIRS Publ. (In Russ.)



Abstract - 957

PDF (Mlt) - 353




Copyright (c) 2018 Guzman Tirado R.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies