.png)
UDC 811.161.1`37
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.2-23.025
Sologubov Aleksandr M.,
Candidate of Philosophy, Independent Researcher
Kaliningrad
e-mail: aleks.sologubov@gmail.com
Boronin Aleksandr A.,
Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor,
Professor in Moscow Region State Pedagogical University,
Chair of English Philology, Faculty of Romance and Germanic
Languages, Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication
e-mail: inloco@inbox.ru
The goal of the research is a transdisciplinary reconstruction of the hybrid subject of linguistics. The result of the research is the distinction between the local onomasticon as a linear list of words, separated from spatial and temporal contexts, and the onomastic suite formation. Transdisciplinarity as a methodological principle of research is represented in the actualization of the cenological approach. The concept onomastic suite formation was coined to linguistically explain the excessive derived groupings of different-frequency onyms related to the parent onym and sharing the common cultural-historical context. The onomastic suite formation is interpreted as a dynamic subsystem of semiocoenosis, the elements of which are formally heterogeneous, loosely coupled from the linguistic point of view, but they share spatial and temporal parameters forming homogeneous social-historical contents associated with psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and linguoculturological factors. The results are based on the analysis of a sample of 4000 onomastic units, which was generated and interpreted in an “all-humanities key” using an integrated methodology (including contextual analysis, method of vocabulary definitions, interviewing, modeling, introspection).
Keywords: transdisciplinarity, hybrid subject, onomastic suite formation, onomasticon, cenological approach, polyonymy.
References
1. Tolstaya N.N. Odna: rasskazy. Moscow: Eksmo, 2006. 320 s.
2. Garvalik M. K voprosu o sovremennoi onomasticheskoi terminologii // Voprosy onomastiki. 2007. No. 4. S. 5–13.
3. Matveev A.K. Onomastika i onomatologiia: terminologicheskii etiud // Voprosy onomastiki. 2005. No. 2. S. 5–10.
4. Boronin A.A. O gibridnom ob”ekte v lingvistike v kontekste nauchnogo naslediia Iuriia Aleksandrovicha Sorokina // Voprosy psikholingvistiki. 2021. No. 2 (48). S. 38–47.
5. Molchanova G.G. Angliiskii kak nerodnoi: tekst, stil’, kul’tura, kommunikatsiia: ucheb. posobie. Moscow: OLMA Media Grupp, 2007. 384 s.
6. Kudrin B.I. Vvedenie v tekhnetiku. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomsk. gos. un-ta, 1993. 552 s.
7. Biology as society, society as biology: Metaphors / eds. S. Maasen, E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic, 1995. 356 p.
8. Ogurtsov A.P. Filosofiia nauki: dvadtsatyi vek: kontseptsii i problemy: v 3 ch. Ch. 2: Filosofiia nauki: nauka v sotsiokul’turnoi sisteme. St. Petersburg: Mir, 2011. 493 s.
9. Tulmin S. Kontseptual’nye revoliutsii v nauke // Struktura i razvitie nauki: iz bostonskikh issledovanii po filosofii nauki. Moscow: Progress, 1978. S. 170–189.
10. Leontiev A.A. Slovo v rechevoi deiatel’nosti: nekotorye problemy obshchei teorii rechevoi deiatel’nosti. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2003. 246 s.
11. Fasmer M. Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka: v 4 t. T. 3 / per. s nem. i dop. O.N. Trubacheva. 2-e izd., ster. Moscow: Progress, 1987. 832 s.
12. Svita geologicheskaia // Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia / gl. red. A.M. Prokhorov. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1976. T. 23. S. 83.
13. Sologubov A.M. Prostranstvo poimenovannoe // Istoriia. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo: mezhdistsiplinarnye podkhody: v 2 ch. Ch. 2: Istoriia i kul’turologiia / pod red. L.P. Repinoi, G.I. Zverevoi. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2003. S. 414–440.
14. Solnechnoe spletenie: sovremennaia kaliningradskaia poeziia: 750-letiiu Kaliningrada i 60-letiiu Kaliningradskoi oblasti posviashchaetsia / sost. I. Belov, S. Mikhailov. Kaliningrad: Izd-vo RGU im. I. Kanta, 2005. 242 s.
15. Matveev A.K. Evoliutsionnye protsessy v onomastike // Voprosy onomastiki. 2008. No. 6. S. 130–136.
16. Brendbuk i instruktsii po primeneniiu firmennogo stilia / BFU imeni I. Kanta. URL: https://www.kantiana.ru/upload/iblock/9c0/brandbook_digital.pdf (19.09.2022).
17. Sologubov A.M. Onomasticheskie edinitsy s leksemoi “iantar’” i ee proizvodnymi kak spetsificheskii marker iazykovogo soznaniia zhitelei Kaliningrada i Kaliningradskoi oblasti // Zhizn’ iazyka v kul’ture i sotsiume. Moscow: Eidos, 2010. S. 285–288.
18. Leontiev A.A. Prikladnaia psikholingvistika rechevogo obshcheniia i massovoi kommunikatsii. Moscow: Smysl, 2008. 272 s.
19. Kudrin B.I. Matematika tsenozov: vidovoe, rangovidovoe, rangovoe po parametru giperbolicheskie H-raspredeleniia i zakony Lotki, Tsipfa, Pareto, Mandel’brota // Filosofskie osnovaniia tekhnetiki. Novomoskovsk: Tsentr sistemnykh issledovanii, 2002. Vyp. 19. S. 357–413.
20. Golomidova M.V. Iskusstvennaia nominatsiia v russkoi onomastike: monografiia. Ekaterinburg: Ural’skii gos. ped. un-t, 1998. 232 s.