Linguistic and cultural potential of vocabulary with an ethnic component in teaching Russian to foreign students

Full Text

Introduction

Cultural linguistics, that appeared only three decades ago, is actively developing, and linguists note the emergence of a well-established “linguisticcultural tradition” in the study of various aspects of language (Shaklein, 2012; Karasik, Shaklein, 2025).

The tradition of identifying and describing culturally conditioned lexical content for educational purposes dates back to the works of the founders of cultural linguistics as a science (Vorobyov, 1994; Shaklein, 1998), who started the linguistic-cultural approach to teaching Russian as a foreign language. According to this approach, a foreign language should be taught in the closest connection with the cultural spheres and prevailing ideas of nations, as well as their shared intellectual interaction (Vorobyov, 1994).

Among culturally marked linguistic units with varying complexity as objects of linguistic-cultural studies (linguistic-cultural units, logoepistemes, linguisticcultural concepts, linguistic-cultural codes, linguistic-cultural types, etc.), a fundamental role is traditionally assigned to the culturally marked word. Scientists note the importance of a linguistic-cultural approach to describing words when teaching Russian to foreign students “with the aim of fully understanding their content and semantic nuances, as fully as they are perceived by native speakers of the language and culture being studied” (Vorobyov, 2000: 84).

Given the significance of the linguistic-cultural potential of vocabulary, methodologists propose various ways of incorporating it into the educational process and focus both on specific units which have acquired conceptual significance in Russian linguistic consciousness (Nekora, 2008; Yang, 2021) and on lexical units (lexical-semantic fields, lexical-semantic groups, nominative spheres, etc.) with linguistic and cultural value (Vinogradova, 2013; Martynova, 2017; Li, 2018).

This article examines a lexical complex, which we refer to as lexical items with an ethnic component of meaning. This term designates a set of lexical units with semantic components connected to a particular ethnic group or its place of living.  This lexical group consists of three categories: names of countries belonging to toponymic vocabulary (ethnotoponyms), names of representatives of various ethnic groups (ethnotoponyms), and words derivationally related to them: adjectives (e.g., китайский ‘Chinese’), nouns (e.g., русистика ‘Russian language studies’), and adverbs (e.g., по-английски in an English manner).

Let us characterize the word classes that make up this lexical group. The first group (ethnotoponyms) belongs to onomastics, the study of proper names which realize a cognitive function and have a profound influence on language and culture (Superanskaya, 2007; Abbasbeyli, 2024; Chanda, 2017; Reszegi, 2022).

Specialists in cultural linguistics are interested in onomastic vocabulary because onomastic categories convey the lexical-semantic and grammatical meanings inherent in them as linguistic units and possess high informational value as an integral part of national culture. Within the complex onomastic vocabulary, linguists identify a specific group of words connected with toponyms and linked in their meaning to certain ethnic groups. This lexical group is called ethnotoponyms (Superanskaya, 2007: 140). These are toponyms which express the connection between a specific ethnic group and a geographical area (Dorzhieva, 2010: 113). They form a semantic field which represents not only geographical location but also various historical, cultural, and political connections between a specific ethnic group and other ethnic groups. Linguists emphasize the fact that ethnonyms perform a special function, mental identification for an ethnic group, which reflects the “us-them” opposition and differentiates ethnic groups by geographical names (Rassokha, 2010: 190).

The names of countries are directly linked to the lexical group denoting the peoples living in these countries (e.g., американцы Americans, белорусы Belarusians, etc.), which is conventionally classified as ethnotoponyms^[1]. Scientists indicate that these lexical groups are closely interrelated and contain concentrated cultural information; these words are numerous and active in the aspect of word-formation, primarily nouns and adjectives (Ageeva, 1990: 13).

Since the lexical group under consideration not only contains ethnographic and geographical designations but also embodies cultural information, we consider it relevant to identify, describe, and systematize those characteristics in the aspect of teaching Russian to foreign students.

The aim of this study is to identify vocabulary with an ethnic component of meaning and describe its linguistic and cultural potential for teaching Russian to foreign students based on lexicographic sources.

Methods and Materials

The corpus of lexical items with an ethnic component of meaning in the Russian language (the general corpus) was identified with the help of the following lexicographical sources: ideographic, semantic, explanatory, and associative dictionaries of the Russian language: The “Large Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Nouns: Ideographic Description” edited by L.G. Babenko (hereinafter LEDRN)^[2]; “Russian Semantic Dictionary” edited by N.Yu. Shvedova (hereinafter RSD)^[3]; the explanatory “Dictionary of the Russian Language” edited by A.P. Evgenieva (hereinafter DRL)^[4]; “Russian Associative Dictionary” edited by Yu.N. Karaulov (hereinafter RAD)^[5]. Due to the large volume of lexical items under consideration (over 400 entries), the studied corpus was adjusted for educational purposes in accordance with the “Lexical Minimum for Russian as a Foreign Language. Certification Level II” (hereinafter LM)^[6] and data from Russian National Corpus (selected corpus). Lexicographic, semantic, associative, quantitative, and interpretive analysis of the core vocabulary with an ethnic component of meaning, selected by overlaying the obtained lists, demonstrated the main linguistic-cultural systemic, connotative, background, and idiomatic characteristics of the material under study.

The vocabulary from the LEDRN was divided into two categories: “Nouns denoting the peoples of the world” and “Nouns denoting the humanities”.

The first category contains 277 words, which are divided into the following subgroups:

• peoples constituting the population of modern states, residents of a certain country (американцы ‘Americans’, китайцы ‘Chinese’, японцы ‘Japanese’, etc.) — 126 entries;
• peoples not directly associated with modern states (кельты ‘Celts’, норманны ‘Normans’, цыгане ‘Gypsies’, etc.) — 151 entries.

The category of names of humanities includes 20 words: американистика ‘American Studies’, востоковедение ‘Oriental Studies’, германистика ‘German Studies’, испанистика ‘Hispanic Studies’, китаеведение ‘Sinology’, китаистика ‘Chinese Studies’, монголоведение ‘Mongolian Studies’, монголистика ‘Mongolian Studies’, ориенталистика ‘Oriental Studies’, романистика ‘Roman Studies’, русистика ‘Russian language Studies’, славяноведение ‘Slavic Studies’, советология ‘Soviet Studies’, тюркология ‘Turkology’, etc. They contain groups of semantically related words, for example: востоковедение and ориенталистика (the study of Eastern countries); китаеведение, китаистика and синология (the study of China); славистика and славяноведение (sciences concerning Slavic peoples and their languages).

The RSD contains over 200 words with an ethnic component of meaning, which the dictionary’s compilers grouped into six categories:

• relating to racial or national identity (based on physical characteristics), for example: ариец ‘Aryan’, афроамериканец ‘African American’ — 24 entries;
• relating to people of other nationalities, their way of life, for example: англоман ‘Anglophile’, антисемит ‘anti-Semite’ — 12 entries;
• relating to national tolerance and intolerance, for example: англофобство ‘Anglophobia’, германофильство ‘Germanophilia’ — 11 entries;
• based on similarities or differences in origin, religion, or place of residence, e.g., земляк ‘fellow countryman’, инаковерующий ‘person of a different religion’ — 21 entries;
• peoples, tribes, populations of states, e.g., русские ‘Russians’, американцы ‘Americans’ — 200 entries;
• ethnophaulisms, e.g., австрияки ‘colloquial, disapproving Austrians’, жиды ‘colloquial, disapproving Jews’, москали ‘colloquial, disapproving Muscovites’ — 7 entries.

SDRL contains 106 words, which can be divided into the following groups:

• ethnonyms (names of peoples and their representatives), e.g., итальянцы ‘Italians’, поляки ‘Poles’ — 56 entries;
• terms related to cultural influence, borrowings, and assimilation, e.g., американизировать ‘to Americanize’, англицизм ‘Anglicism’ — 27 items;
• names of academic disciplines and specialists, e.g., германистика ‘German studies’, русист ‘Russianist’ — 12 items;
• idioms, for example: русская печь ‘Russian stove’, китайская грамота literally Chinese alphabet ‘as clear as mud’ — 11 entries.

RAD records the following groups of stimuli related to the target group: ethnotoponyms (Австралия ‘Australia’, Америка ‘America’, Беларусь ‘Belarus’, Германия ‘Germany’, Греция ‘Greece’, Италия ‘Italy’, США ‘the USA’, Россия ‘Russia’, Франция ‘France’, Япония ‘Japan’), ethnonyms (еврей ‘a Jew’, немец ‘a German’, русский ‘a Russian’, татарин ‘a Tatar’), and ethnic adjectives (китайский ‘Chinese’, русский ‘Russian’, французский ‘French’, японский ‘Japanese’, финский ‘Finnish’, турецкий ‘Turkish’, грузинский ‘Georgian’, американский ‘American’).

LM contains names of ethnic groups associated with a specific country of residence (89 entries), names of regional ethnic groups (11 words), and names of peoples constituting a linguistic or ethnocultural community (5 words).

So, the number of lexical units under study in authoritative Russian dictionaries, is as follows: LEDRN — 278 entries, RSD — over 200, SDRL — 106, RAD — 22, LM — 89.

The large volume of recorded words necessitated its adaptation for educational purposes. Cross-referencing of the lists (semantic dictionaries, explanatory dictionaries, and the dictionary of associative norms) identified lexical units which are most frequently recorded in dictionaries and have a high frequency of use in Russian National Corpus (RNC). Ethnonymsnicknames in SDRL and RAD, being sociolinguistic markers of aggression to be overcome in the educational sphere (Lapteva, Firsova, 2023; Temirgazina, Bachurka, 2017; Agar-Hutton, 2003), should not be actively used. They may be taught for passive knowledge only and must be given with necessary commentaries. The following units proved to be the most frequently used: Россия (русские) ‘Russia (Russians)’, Китай (китайцы) ‘China (Chinese)’, Япония (японцы) ‘Japan (Japanese)’, Индия (индийцы) ‘India (Indians)’, Америка (американцы) ‘USA (Americans)’, Германия (немцы) ‘Germany (Germans)’, Франция (французы) ‘France (French)’, Англия (англичане) ‘England (English)’, Канада (канадцы) ‘Canada (Canadians)’, Италия (итальянцы) ‘Italy (Italians)’, Испания (испанцы) ‘Spain (Spaniards)’, Австралия (австралийцы) ‘Australia (Australians)’, Турция (турки) ‘Turkey (Turks)’, Финляндия (финны) ‘Finland (Finns)’, Корея (корейцы) ‘Korea (Koreans)’, Польша (поляки) ‘Poland (Poles)’, Беларусь (белорусы) ‘Belarus (Belarusians)’, Украина (украинцы) ‘Ukraine (Ukrainians)’, and Болгария (болгары) ‘Bulgaria (Bulgarians)’. These names with their cognates and idioms form the basis of the lexical system under study. Their linguistic and cultural potential was described and interpretated with the help of authoritative dictionaries of various types.

Results

The data from LEDRN and RSD determined the volume and structural and thematic characteristics of the lexical system under study.

The data from SDRL demonstrated the significant linguistic-cultural potential of the lexical system, which is manifested in its polysemy, wordformation activity, stylistic differentiation, cultural and socio-psychological information, and its prevalence in the idioms.

The data from RAD show that linguistic consciousness of native Russian speakers contains cultural-geographical images of countries with relevant geographical, cultural, and evaluative information.

The data from authoritative dictionaries revealed the significant linguistic and cultural potential of the linguistic system under study. This substantiates the need to interpret and use the linguistic and culturally significant content of the system in teaching Russian to foreign students.

Discussion

The characteristics of the lexical items under consideration were identified based on the “Dictionary of the Russian Language”, edited by A.P. Evgenieva.

Since country names are not typically included in explanatory dictionaries, the research material consists of lexical groups, which can be appropriately designated as ethnonymic lexical blocks; they contain the ethnonyms themselves, words with the same root, and set expressions. The content of these ethnonymic blocks identified the following characteristics of the lexicon under consideration:

1. Lexical polysemy. Ethnonyms include polysemous words, that reflect the dynamics of semantic change. For example, немцы: 1. The main population of the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as people who identify themselves with this nation. 2. Archaic. Foreigners, strangers.
2. Stylistic differentiation. For example, хохол: 2. Archaic and colloquial. A name for a Ukrainian, originally derogatory, then jocular and familiar.
3. Varying degrees of word-formation development. The standard model for the ethnonymic block consists of 4 lexemes: Грузинский ‘Georgian’, Грузины ‘Georgians’, Грузин ‘a Georgian man’, Грузинка ‘a Georgian woman’. The non-standard (expanded) model contains numerous cognates: Англичане ‘English people’, Англичанин ‘an Englishman’, Англичанка ‘an Englishwoman’, Английский ‘English’, По-английски ‘in English’, Англицизм ‘Anglicism’, Англизировать ‘to Anglicize’, Англизироваться ‘to become Anglicized’, Англомания ‘Anglomania’, Англоманство ‘Anglomania’, Англоман ‘Anglophile’, Англоманский ‘Anglophile’, Англосаксы ‘Anglo-Saxons’, Англосаксонский ‘Anglo-Saxon’.

The word-formation activity of ethnonyms reflects in terms, including names of academic disciplines and fields of study: германистика (the body of disciplines concerning Germany), американистика (the body of disciplines concerning the United States), финноугроведение (the body of disciplines concerning Finno-Ugric peoples, their languages, and cultures); specialists in these academic fields: германист (a specialist in the German language, literature, and culture), американист (a specialist in the history and culture of the United States); linguistic borrowings: англицизм (a word or expression borrowed from the English language). The linguistic-cultural potential of a word exists in the linguistic system (Shaklein, 1999: 191) and can be described and interpreted only in accordance with the systemic characteristics of linguistic units (Shaklein, 1998: 99). These characteristics of lexical system under study allow us to integrate their systemic characteristics and cultural meanings within the framework of a linguistic-cultural approach in developing educational content for international students.

4. Cultural informativeness. Thanks to the broad semantic derivation of ethnonymic lexical blocks, the word semantics may include the names of phenomena from very different spheres (nature, everyday culture, etc.). This illustrates broad cultural connections reflected in the Russian linguistic worldview. For example, китайка (noun with the root Chinese) denotes a dense fabric of Chinese origin and a variety of apples; полька (noun with the root Polish) combines the meanings ‘a female resident of Poland’, ‘a national ballroom dance”, and ‘a type of men’s haircut’; итальянка (noun with the root Italian) means ‘a female resident of Italy’ and ‘a double-row accordion’; испанка (noun with the root Spanish) means ‘a female resident of Spain’ and ‘a severe flu’. The polysemy in the examined vocabulary reflects the ability of language to accumulate and concentrate the broadest culturally determined associations within a single word, and they should be considered when teaching Russian to foreign students.
5. Socio-psychological significance. The words in ethnonymic blocks may contain semantic components indicating the speakers’ positive or negative attitudes toward a particular ethnic group and reflecting socio-psychological factors, for example: германофил ‘a lover of German culture’, германофоб ‘a hater of German culture’, англофил ‘a passionate lover of everything English’, галломания ‘passionate fascination with French culture’, etc.
6. Idiomatic potential. Set expressions containing the words under study reflect various aspects of everyday culture: английский замок literally an English lock (a self-locking, mortise lock with a flat key), английский костюм literally an English suit (a double-breasted suit with lapels and a small turndown collar), английский парк literally an English park (a garden or park resembling a forest), and convey symbolic meanings: китайская грамота literally a Chinese puzzle (something very difficult to understand), китайская стена literally the Great Wall of China (complete isolation from external influence).

Given that ethnonyms (names of countries) are not recorded in explanatory dictionaries, it is advisable to consider their associative potential, which reflects knowledge about the world and its perception in the linguistic consciousness of native speakers (Ufimtseva, 2014; Deese, 1965).

As noted above, RAD includes 10 country names as stimuli. The authors used the quantitative method of processing associative fields, the use of frequent and recurring responses, and the semantic gestalt method (Karaulov, 2000) to differentiate lexical items based on their connections to extralinguistic reality and identified the following groups of associations: geographical (size, climate, landscape, flora, and fauna), culturally determined (history, art, politics, economy, everyday life, etc.), and emotional-evaluative (psychological perception).

All recurring reactions recorded in the RAD to the names of countries as stimuli are distributed as follows: culture, history, and politics (53%), evaluative attitudes (15%), and geographical characteristics: size, nature, climate, landscape, wildlife (8%), precedent names (5%), other (18%).

The associative potential of the names of geographical objects is the subject of linguistic-cultural studies, for example, of cities (Ufimtseva, Balyasnikova, 2021) and cardinal directions (Vasilieva, Huang, 2021). The associative potential of country names is considered within the framework of the linguistic-cultural approach, where a new field has emerged. The field is called linguistic-cultural studies of countries, and its relevance is connected with the important role of a country’s image in the linguistic consciousness of native speakers and within the context of modern mass communication (Vorobyov, Sknarev, Tagayev, 2025: 10).

The identified groups of associations show the following differences in country perception in the minds of native Russian speakers:

1. Images of countries consisting of geographical representations only without culturally conditioned and evaluative ones:

Australia: geographical status (country, mainland, continent, island); climate (hot, sunny); wildlife (kangaroo, crocodile, koala, monkey).

2. Images of countries without geographical concepts:

Germany: historical and political associations prevail (fascists, war, Hitler, fascism, etc.).

France: associations related to the country’s culture and art prevail (Dumas, Hugo, perfume, Paris, etc.).

3. Images of countries that combine both geographical and cultural perceptions:

Italy: geographical associations (hot, sun, sea, warmth); cultural associations (Colosseum, Venice, Renaissance, etc.).

Greece: geographical associations (sunny, scorching, hot); cultural associations (ancient, classical culture, Achilles).

In general, emotional and evaluative attitudes toward countries can be summarized as follows: France, Italy, Greece, Russia (+), Germany (–/+), the United States, Belarus, Japan (+/–), Australia (0).

The associative fields reflect not only the respondents’ knowledge of various phenomena relevant to native Russian speakers, but also convey their attitudes toward them, which constitute the connotative component of their lexical meaning. According to Yu.D. Apresyan, it is precisely the connotations of a word that reflect the stable features of the concept and embody the evaluation of an object or fact in a certain linguistic community (Apresyan, 1995: 159). Since the attitude toward real-world phenomena and their evaluation constitute the deepest zone of the meaning, we believe that associative fields will help foreign students understand the basis for positive, neutral, or negative reactions of Russian respondents, for example, to the stimulus “Germany” (fascism, aggression, enemy, etc.).

Lexicographical sources show information associated with all levels of lexical meaning, reveal the deep connections between the word and the culture of the target language: linguistic information, indicating the cultural significance of the systemic characteristics of ethnonyms; psycholinguistic information, which explicates the cultural connotations (associations and evaluations); background information, containing knowledge and perceptions of various ethnic groups reflected in the Russian linguistic worldview; and idiomatically conditioned information.

The interdisciplinary nature of the information conveyed by words with an ethnic component of meaning substantiates the need to create an integrative educational dictionary of these words to reveal their linguistic and cultural potential.

Principles of educational lexicography, including the principle of incorporating “culturally determined units” (Kwon, Rogaleva, Nikitina, 2025) and the principle of multidirectional selectivity, integrating data from various disciplines for educational purposes (Vasilyeva, Levina, 2017; Vasilyeva, 2019), define a structure for the dictionary entry, containing expanded ethnonymic lexical blocks and country names not recorded in explanatory dictionaries:

1. Heading words (the name of the country and the people living there).
2. Grammatical and stylistic notes to these words.
3. An encyclopaedic reference containing general information about the country, relevant to native Russian speakers.
4. Cognates with grammatical and stylistic explanations.
5. The core zone of associative fields recorded in dictionaries of associative norms, the explicitly expressed connotative, associative and evaluative, meaning. 7. Various set expressions and idioms.
6. Illustrative examples from classical and modern artistic texts showing the attitude toward a particular ethnic group characteristic in the Russian linguistic worldview. The set expressions, idioms, definitions, and illustrative examples used in the dictionary are taken from the 17-volume “Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language”^[7].

Here is a sample entry for an integrative educational dictionary demonstrating the linguistic and cultural potential of ethnonymic lexical units.

Section: Italy, Italians

Италия ‘Italy’, noun (feminine) — a country in Southern Europe.

Encyclopaedic reference. A country located in Southern Europe on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The official language is Italian. The predominant religion is Catholicism. The capital is Rome. Major cities are Milan, Naples, Venice, Florence, Genoa, Bologna.

Related words:

Итальянец ‘an Italian man’, noun, masculine. A member of the Romancespeaking ethnic group which constitutes most of Italy’s population.

Итальянка ‘an Italian woman’, noun, feminine. 1. A female member of the Romance-speaking group that constitutes most of Italy’s population. 2. (colloquial) A double-row accordion. 

Итальянцы ‘Italians’, noun, plural. 1. The Romance-speaking group that constitutes most Italy’s population. 2. Composers and performers of Italian music.

Итальянский ‘Italian’, adjective (masculine). Relating to Italy or Italians.

Итальянизм ‘Italianism’, noun, masculine. 1. Characteristics or qualities inherent in Italian music. 2. (academic) A word or phrase borrowed into Russian from Italian.

Итальяноман ‘an Italianophile’, noun, masculine. A lover and connoisseur of Italian music.

Итальяномания ‘Italianomania’, noun, feminine. A passion for Italian music.

Итальяноманство ‘Italianomanism’, noun, neuter. The same as итальяномания.

Итальянщина ‘Italianism’, noun, feminine (colloquial, derogatory). 1. Referring to the characteristics and qualities inherent in Italian music and Italian life. Both “Tannhäuser” and “Lohengrin” have quite a bit of the most ordinary Italianism. Stasov. 2. Colloquial. Music composed by Italian composers.

По-итальянски ‘In the Italian style’, adverb, indeclinable (to speak Italian, to sing in the Italian style).  

Most common associations: Rome, Venice, fashion, opera, soccer, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, music, the Renaissance, Ferrari, the Colosseum, the Pope, Fellini, pizza, cinema, Sophia Loren, the sea, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, love, vehemence, Italian cuisine, Catholicism.

Set phrases and idioms:

Italian music — music by Italian composers.

Italian window — a wide window with 3–4 panes.

Italian cuisine — the traditional cuisine of Italy, widespread and popular throughout the world, primarily thanks to dishes such as pizza and spaghetti.

Italian strike — a type of strike when strikers come to work but do not work or pretend to work.

Illustrative examples.

“Well, wonderful! Italy, the sky, the sun, and love…” he said, tapping his foot excitedly (I.A. Goncharov).

After all, we’re not in Italy… there’s nowhere to find passionate love, and it’s not even reasonable to look for it… (A.N. Ostrovsky).

These artists are nothing like Italian artists, proud and fiery, like Italy and its sky (N.V. Gogol).

Conclusion

The extensive corpus of lexical items with an ethnic component of meaning in the Russian language has significant linguistic and cultural potential documented in lexicographical sources. This lexicon, which forms an important part of the Russian linguistic worldview, reflects not only geographical and ethnographic concepts but also profound linguistic and cultural content, which is often implicit for foreign students. An integrative educational dictionary of words with an ethnic component of meaning can make this potential explicit in the educational process; such a dictionary will contain information on lexical polysemy, stylistic differentiation, word-formation complexity, cultural marking, associative potential, and idiomatic possibilities of the given vocabulary. The prospects for this research are linked to compiling an educational dictionary of words with an ethnic component of meaning and integrating it in the process of teaching Russian to foreign students.

 

_{¹ Podolskaya, N. V. (1978). Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. 2nd ed., revised and additional. Moscow: Nauka Publ.}

_{² Babenko, L. G. (2005). Large Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Nouns. Ideographic Description. Synonyms. Antonyms. Moscow: AST-Press Kniga Publ.}

_{³ Shvedova, N. Yu. (2003). Russian Semantic Dictionary. Vol. 1: Pointing words (pronouns). Naming words: nouns (All living things. Earth. Space). Moscow: Azbukovnik Publ.}

_{⁴ Evgenieva, A. P. (1981–1984). Dictionary of the Russian language. In 4 volumes USSR Academy of Sciences. Russian Language Institute. 2nd ed., revised and supplemented. Moscow: Russkii yazyk Publ.}

_{⁵ Karaulov, Yu. N. (2002). Russian Associative Dictionary. In 2 volumes. Vol. 1. From stimulus to reaction: Approx. 7,000 stimuli. Moscow: AST Publ.}

_{⁶ Andryushina, N. P. (2015). Lexical minimum for Russian as a foreign language. The second certification level. General knowledge (electronic edition). Saint Petersburg: Zlatoust Publ.}

_{⁷ Dictionary of Modern Russian Literary Language. Volumes 1–17. Moscow; Leningrad, 1948–1965.}

About the authors

Galina M. Vasileva

Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: filfak_herzen@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4169-0330
SPIN-code: 2554-1216
Scopus Author ID: 57201287550

Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of Intercultural Communication Department of Philological Faculty

52 1st line V.O, Saint Petersburg, 199053, Russian Federation

Ruichen Dai

Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

Email: dairuichen0@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-5303-4290

Graduate student, Intercultural Communication Department of Philological Faculty

52 1st line V.O, Saint Petersburg, 199053, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files