Cover Page


The article deals with the description of a modeling process of nominative units in A. Pushkin language; the units presenting a nominative field with certain value landmarks. The semantic valence of Pushkin`s word related to a primordial image (archetype) is shown in the ability to evolute extensively the meaning energy in a text prospect. The data for study were the units of two synonymic rows with the core units “ арап ” and “ негр ” functioning in A. Pushkin language. The study aimed at revealing the nomination specificity in the poet language, and characterizing the factors determining a nomination process. The author`s reflective vector in a language material analysis became evident at a deep symbolic level. An analytical procedure to reconstruct a meta-semantic text construct was based on a componential analysis combined with a contextual one, as well as on an interpretation technique and a descriptive method. The findings demonstrated the mentioned nominative units to have a specific axiological value, be implemented within the semantic areas “ своё ” (`my ancestors`, `pride of grateful descendants`) and “ чужое ” (`hostile world, which failed to comprehend and accept him`). And their semantic evolution specifies the text sign space arrangement. A nominative frame of Pushkin`s discourse is determined by a cross point of two destinies disconnected by time - the poet`s great grandfather, Abram Petrovich Hannibal, and Alexander Pushkin, a converging point of “racial” drama and public and creative loneliness drama of personalities rejected and unappreciated by their contemporaries. A semantic “tension” of the author’s idea, its dualism reaches the summit when the self-consciousness reason is fathomed: it is inside негр- арап opposition, where there is a semantic, and wider - a mental point haunting the poet’s reflecting consciousness. The conclusion appears to be conceptually significant: черный дед мой Ганнибал, <...> сходно купленный арап <...> Царю наперсник, а не раб . Semantic increments are exhibited against a rich association background of Pushkin cognition: the poet ‘models’ the text with abundant implication, where every “nominative hint” unfolds under the abundance of a semantic prospect. Major components of the process are intertextually loaded units - precedential names. Their usage forms the basis for a cognitive mechanism to convey implication through an “economical” nominative procedure. The study findings can be used to create semantic dictionaries of a complex type.

About the authors

Svetlana Nikolaevna Perevolochanskaya

The Kosygin State University of Russia

Author for correspondence.
33, Sadovnicheskaya Str., Moscow, Russia, 117997

Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of General and Slavonic Philology, Institute of Slavic Culture The Kosygin State University of Russia


  1. Bakhtin, M.М. (1979). Esthetics of written word. Moscow: Art. (In Russ.).
  2. Burov, A.P. (2012). Substantive syntax nomination in the Russian language. Stavropol-Pyatigorsk: Stavropol State University Press. (In Russ.).
  3. Leontiev, A.А. (1969). Psycholinguistic units of the generation of speech utterance. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  4. Karmanova, Z.Ya. (2014). Phenomenological aspects of word content structure. Kaluga: Eidos Publishing House. (In Russ.).
  5. Gogotishvili L.A. (2006). Indirect speaking. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture. (In Russ.).
  6. Karmanova, Z.Ya. (2017). Consciousness phenomenon vs. word phenomenon (phenomenological sketches). In: Russian conference on cognitive science. Modern cognitive researches—2017. Kazan: Kazan University Press. pp. 361—372. (In Russ.).
  7. Potebnya, A.A. (2007). Thought and language. Moscow: Labyrinth. (In Russ.).
  8. Kolesov, V.V. (2002). Russian word philosophy. S-Petersburg. (In Russ.).
  9. Busygina, N.P. (2009). The phenomenological description and interpretation: examples of the analysis of the data in qualitative psychological researches. Moscow Psychotherapeutic Journal, 2, 52—76. (In Russ.).
  10. Penkovsky, A.B. (2004). Essays on Russian semantics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture. (In Russ.).
  11. Belyavskaya, E.G. (2005). The concept of connotation from a cognitive point of view. In Conceptual space of language. Tambov: TSU Publishing House G.R. Derzhavina. pp. 53—66. (In Russ.).
  12. Vinogradov, V.V. (1941). Pushkin style. Moscow. (In Russ.).
  13. Shapiro, R.Ya. (1986). Proper and improper names in the nomination system. In Semantics of the word and the meaning of the text. Saransk. pp. 158—163. (In Russ.).
  14. Tomashevsky, B.V. (1978). Notes. In Pushkin, A.S. The complete works in 10 volumes. Volume 6. Fiction. Leningrad: Science. Leningrad branch. pp. 511—558. (In Russ.).
  15. Agratin, A.E. (2018). Poetics of implicit narration: in search of a theoretical model. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tomsk State University Journal, 428, 5—11. doi: 10.17223/15617793/428/1.m (In Russ.).
  16. Bazhenova, Ya.V. (2016). Poetics of I.A. Bunin’s “Happy house”: proper noun — art detail — narrative. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tomsk State University Journal, 413, 14—21. doi: 10.17223/15617793/413/2. (In Russ.).
  17. Radionova, A.V. (2019). Ethical Reflection in a Lyric Poem. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tomsk State University Journal, 439, 57—65. doi: 10.17223/15617793/439/7.
  18. Bulgarin, F.V. (2001). Memoirs. M.: Zakharov. (In Russ.).
  19. Ioannidi, I.P. (1999). “Moya rodoslovnaya” A.S. Pushkin (on the question of the origins of the poetic feuilleton). Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2, 11—14. (In Russ.).
  20. Dolgorukov, I.M. (1997). The Highlands of my heart. Moscow: Science. (In Russ.).
  21. Muratova, H.Yu. (2014). Specifics of allotropic poetic texts analysis. Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, 2 (32), 121—129. (In Russ.).
  22. Egorova, E.N. (2018). Object as the key to remembering (cultural and semantic analysis of the work “Suitcase” by S.D. Dovlatov). Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, 48, 200—210. (In Russ.).
  23. Lomakina, O.V. & Mokienko, V.M. (2018). Value constants of the rusin paremiology (compared with the Ukrainian and Russian languages). Rusin, 54, 303—317. (In Russ.).
  24. Lomakina, O.V. & Mokienko, V.M. (2016). Cognitive potential of rusin proverbs compared with those in the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Rusin, 3 (45), 119—128. (In Russ.).
  25. Dulina, N.V., Kargapolova, E.V. & Simonenko, M.A. (2017). Precedent text of belletristic literature in the cultural memory of students: sociolinguistic aspect. Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, 45, 163—175. (In Russ.).
  26. Chernyavskaya, V.E. (2004). Intertext and interdiscourse as a realization of text openness. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics-Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, 1, 106—111. (In Russ.).
  27. Kashkin, V.B. (2005). Comparative discourse study. In Conceptual space of the Russian language. Tambov: TSU. pp. 337—353. (In Russ.).
  28. Shestak, L.A. (2014). Internextuality and cognitive text theory. In: Internextuality and intertext figures in various types of discourse. Moscow: “Flint”. pp. 125—147. (In Russ.).
  29. Sergodeev, I.V. & Olizko, N.S. (2018). Text, hypertext and intertext in the works of J. Morrison. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta — Tomsk State University Journal, 430, 33—38. doi: 10.17223/15617793/430/4. (In Russ.).
  30. Sidorenko, K.P. (2016). On the principles of the dictionary of intertextual units from I.A. Krylov’s fables. Voprosy leksikografii — Russian Journal of Lexicography. 2016. 1 (9). pp. 40—63. doi: 10.17223/22274200/9/4. (In Russ.).



Abstract - 247

PDF (Russian) - 97




Copyright (c) 2019 Perevolochanskaya S.N.

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