Contextuality in the Russian language

Cover Page

Cite item


The modern scientific paradigm of linguistics that replaced comparative historical and linguistic-centric paradigm is focused on the relationship between language and reality which is inherently asymmetric in nature. In this situation, the problem of an accurate and complete mutual understanding of the participants of communication becomes more and more urgent. This problem considered in the framework of cultural studies suggests the division of cultures into high context cultures, i.e. those where the behavior of communication participants does not directly express their goals and intentions, and low context cultures, implying direct and frank manifestations of those intentions. The author applies the idea of high and low contextuality to the Russian language, setting the task of identifying those typical manifestations of Russian discourse in which the linguistic signs show a high dependence on the situational and verbal context, and in this way, by virtue of the language structure, cause difficulties for mutual understanding. From this point of view, the study investigates the polysemy of Russian words and grammatical forms, as well as the conditions in which their unambiguous understanding is or is not achieved. It emphasizes the insufficiency of merely stating the possibility of several solutions and the need for algorithms that provide the only (or not the only) correct solution. The author sees another obstacle for successful communication in hyperonyms that do not have a distinct hyponymic content for each participant of communication. The third obstacle is the omission of the verbal designation of modifying and / or substantial characteristics of reality. The article emphasizes that those who speak Russian, in principle possessing the resources necessary for overcoming these difficulties, seek to use them effectively only in certain specialized areas (science, sports, trade) and do not care about the maximum adequacy of language units and reality in everyday and political discourse. In conclusion, the article describes how to take into account the noted features of the Russian language when consciously learning Russian as a native language, as well as when teaching it as a foreign language.

About the authors

Igor G. Miloslavsky

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.

Doctor of Philology, Academician of the International Higher Educa- tion Academy of Sciences, Distinguished professor of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Head of the Department of Comparative Analysis of Languages. Research interests: studies of active grammar of the Russian language, creation of special divisions of ideographic grammar of the Russian language, revelation of combinatory possibilities of the units of different level conveying definite nominative contents.

31 Bldg.a Lomonosov Str., 119192, Russia


  1. Алифиренко Н.Ф. Современные проблемы науки о языке. М., 2014. С. 289-313. [Alifirenko, N.F. (2014). Modern problems of the science of language. Moscow, 289-313. (In Russ.)]
  2. Алпатов В.М. История лингвистических учений. М., 2005. С. 130-143. [Alpatov, V.M. (2005). History of linguistic teachings. Moscow, 130-143. (In Russ.)]
  3. Балачандран Н. Степень контекстуальности культуры как фактор информации в межкультурной коммуникации. Мир русского слова. 2016. № 4. [Balachandran, N. (2016). The degree of cultural contextuality as a factor of information in intercultural communication. “The World of the Russian word». No 4. (In Russ.)]
  4. Богданова Л.И. Многозначность и заимствование как когнитивные процессы в современном русском языке // Язык. Культура. Перевод. Коммуникация. Выпуск М., 2008. [Bogdanova, L.I. (2008). Polysemy and borrowing as cognitive processes in modern Russian. Language. Culture Transfer. Communication. Release 2. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  5. Валгина Н.С. Активные процессы в современном русском языке. М., 2001. [Valgina, N.S. (2001). Active processes in modern Russian. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  6. Виноградов В.А. Артикль // Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. М., 1990. [Vinogradov, V.A. (1990). Article. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow (In Russ.)]
  7. Виноградов В.В. Русский язык. М., 1972. [Vinogradov, V.V. (1972). Russian language. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  8. Гордиевская М.Л. Семантика контролируемости/неконтролируемости в русском языке // Язык, культура, коммуникация: изучение и обучение: Материалы III международной научно-практической конференции. Орел, 2018. [Gordievskaya, M.L. (2018). Semantics of controllability/uncontrollability in the Russian language. Language, culture, communication: study and training: Materials of the III International Scientific Practical Conference. Oryol. (In Russ.)]
  9. Доброхотов А.Л. Новая философская энциклопедия. Институт философии РАН. М., 2010. [Dobrokhotov, A.L. (2010). New philosophical encyclopedia. Institute of Philosophy RAN. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  10. Добров Б.В., Лукашевич Н.В. Разрешение лексической многозначности на основе тезауруса предметной области. Труды международной конференции «Диалог - 2007». [Dobrov, B.V., Lukashevich, N.V. (2007). The resolution of lexical ambiguity based on the thesaurus of the subject area. Proceedings of the international conference “Dialogue - 2007”. (In Russ.)]
  11. Зализняк Андрей А. Русское именное словоизменение. М., 1967. [Zaliznyak, Andrei A. (1967). Russian nominal inflection. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  12. Зализняк Андрей А. Прогулки по Европе. М.; СПб., 2018. [Zaliznyak, Andrei A. (2018). Walking around Europe. Moscow - Saint-Petersburg. (In Russ.)]
  13. Зализняк Анна А. Многозначность в языке и способы ее представления. М., 2006. [Zaliznyak, Anna A. (2006). Polysemy in language and methods of its presentation. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  14. Иомдин Б.Л. и др. Словарь бытовой терминологии: новые проблемы и новые методы // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии. Вып. 12 (19). Т. 1. М., РГГУ, 2013. [Iomdin, B.L. and others (2013). Dictionary of household terminology: new problems and new. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Issue 12 (19). T. 1. Moscow: RSUH. (In Russ.)]
  15. Иомдин Б.Л. Многозначные слова в контексте и вне контекста // Вопросы языкознания. 2014. № 4. [Iomdin B.L. (2014). Many-valued words in context and out of context. Questions of linguistics. No 4. (In Russ.)]
  16. Кобрицов Б.К. Методы снятия семантической многозначности. НТИ серия 2, 2004. № [Kobritsov, B.K. (2004). Methods for removing semantic ambiguity. STI series 2, No 2 (In Russ.)]
  17. Ларина Т.В. Основы межкультурной коммуникации. М., 2017. [Larina, T.V. (2017). Osnovy mezhkul'turnoi kommunikatsii. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  18. Лотман Ю.М. К проблеме типологии культур. Ереван, 1979. [Lotman, Yu.M. (1979). To the problem of the typology of cultures. Yerevan. (In Russ.)]
  19. Лотте Д.С. Основы построения научно-технической терминологии: вопросы теории и методики. М., 1961. [Lotte, D.S. (1961). Fundamentals of construction of scientific and technical terminology: questions of theory and methodology. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  20. Ляшевский О.Н. Семантика русского языка. М., 2004. [Lyashevsky, O.N. (2004). The semantics of the Russian language. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  21. Милославский И.Г. Видовая принадлежность глагола в обеспечении рецептивной и продуктивной речевой деятельности // Изв. РАН СЛЯ, 2015. Том 74. № 1. [Miloslavskiy, I.G. (2015). The species of the verb in the provision of receptive and productive speech activity. Izv. RAN SLYa, Vol. 74. No 1. (In Russ.)]
  22. Милославский И.Г. О принципиальных различиях между русскими грамматиками для рецепции и продукции. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2018. Vol. 22. № 2. [Miloslavskiy, I.G. (2018). On the fundamental differences between Russian grammars for reception and production. Russian Journal of Linguistics. Vol. 22. No. 2. (In Russ.)]
  23. Ольховская А.И. Полисемия как проблема общей и словарной лексикологии. М., 2015. [Olkhovskaya, A.I. (2015). Polysemy as a problem of general and vocabulary lexicology. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  24. Падучева Е.В. Неопределенно-личное предложение и его подразумеваемый субъект // Вопросы языкознания, 2012. № 1. [Paducheva, E.V. (2012). Indefinitely-personal sentence and its implied subject. Questions of linguistics, No 1. (In Russ.)]
  25. Панов М.В. О некоторых общих тенденциях.. // Вопросы языкознания, 1963. [Panov, M.V. (1963). On some general trends.. Questions of linguistics. (In Russ.)]
  26. Пешковский А.М. Объективная и нормативная точка зрения на язык. В кн. Пешковский А.М. Избранные труды. М., 1959. [Peshkovsky, A.M. (1959). Objective and normative point of view on the language. In the book. Peshkovsky A.M. Selected Works. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  27. Санников В.З. Русский язык в зеркале языковой игры. М., 1999. [Sannikov, V.Z. (1999). Russian language in the mirror of the language game. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  28. Солганик Г.Я. Современная языковая ситуация и тенденции развития русского литературного языка // Вестник МГУ, серия 10 «Журналистика», 2010. № 5. [Solganik G.Ya. (2010). Modern linguistic situation and development trends of the Russian literary language. Vestnik MGU, series 10 Journalism, No. 5. (In Russ.)]
  29. Соссюр Ф. Курс общей лингвистики. М., 2004. [Saussure, F. (2004). The course of general linguistics. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  30. Флиер А.Я. Культурология для культурологов. М., 2002. [Flier, A.Ya. (2002). Culturology for cultural studies. Moscow. (In Russ.)]
  31. Шмелева Е.А., Шмелев А.Д. Русский анекдот. Текст и речевой жанр. М., ЯСК, 2002. [Shmeleva, E.A., Shmelev A.D. (2002). Russian anecdote. Text and speech genre. Moscow: YASK. (In Russ.)]
  32. Hall, E. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Intercultural Press.
  33. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage.
  34. Hofstede, G., Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Macgrow-Hill.
  35. Inglehart, R.F. (2018). Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Navigli, R. (2009). Word Sense Disambiguation: a Survey. ACM Computing Surveys. ACM Press, No 41 (2), 1-69.
  37. Roy, M. (2010). Berko, et al. Communicating. Boston.

Copyright (c) 2019 Miloslavsky I.G.

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