Учебное пособие 1795

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

The relations of possessiveness arising between the subject of the possessive relationship, expressed by the possessive pronouns my (4) and their (5), and the object of the possessive relationship, expressed by the verbal noun loving (4) and the noun loss (5), imply: I love Ralph, they lost money / profit respectively. Thus, the possessive pronouns my and their replace the personal pronouns I and they and express the subject of the possessive relationship.

The possessive meaning, formed by the possessive pronouns, is clarified at the level of an utterance through the semantics of the lexical unit expressing the object of the possessive relation. Due to this in the content of the category of possessiveness, besides the pragmatic and semantic meanings “belonging” and “relation”, the pragmatic and semantic meaning “acquisition or change of property, belonging” can be activated:

“[…] Sallie advised m y g e t t i n g i t [the book], so I did […]” [2*, p. 194].

Let us now turn to an analysis of the peculiarities of the expression of possessiveness by structural means.

In modern English, at the morphological level the possessiveness is represented by the unique form of the possessive case, which functions as part of the construction N’s+N. To confirm the legitimacy of referring the analyzed construction to the means of expressing possessiveness, let us consult defining dictionaries.

’s или ’ – is used to form possessives [2**, p. 1277].

As the above definition shows, the system meaning of the construction N’s+N, determined through the concept of possessive, activates the pragmatic and semantic meaning “possessiveness” in the content of the category of possessiveness.

However, most linguists recognize that ’s conveys a variety of relationships that are not reducible only to the relationship of belonging or possession. Along with them, ’s expresses the relations of origin or source of appearance, subject and object relations, partitive relations, temporal and spatial relations, relations of measure, degree, cost, equivalence, associativity or involvement, etc. (see [12]). As a consequence, in the content of the category of possessiveness, the meaning “relation / reference to the subject” can be singled out.

The construction of N’s+N in a generalized form signals that objects or phenomena of the real world enter into a relationship of possessiveness. The nouns in the structure of N’s+N express the subject of the possessive relationship and the object of the possessive relationship. The subject of the possessive relation is in most cases expressed by a noun, which has ’s or ’, i.e. forms the genitive case. The object of the possessive relation is expressed by a noun occupying the position of the second component of the construction.

One of t h e j u d i c i a r y ’ s primary t a s k s is the interpretation of statutory enactments

[3*, p. 173].

“[…] We’ll stay in one of t h e f i r m ’ s c o n d o s . […]” [4*, p. 143].

In the above statements, the construction N’s+N indicates that between the subject of the possessive relation expressed by the nouns judiciary and firm, and the object of the possessive relationship expressed by noun tasks and condos, arises a relation of possessiveness. To specify and refine the formed possessive meaning, it is necessary to use additional linguistic modes, i.e. the semantics of nouns, which are the components of the construction, and the contextual space.

In the process of expressing the possessiveness at the morphological level, the subject can be expressed not only by nouns but also by pronouns. At the same time, pronouns of only cer-

134

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

tain subclasses can represent the subject of possessive relation, namely: indefinite pronouns (one, somebody, nobody, etc.), universal, or generalizing (everyboby, neither, etc.), separative (other) and mutual activities pronouns (each other, one another). For example:

[…] Tom was very clever at helping one with o n e ’ s i n c o m e - t a x r e t u r n [7*, p. 193].

how beautiful and young they were [4*, p. 177].

It should be noted that the positional subject does not always turn out to be a functional subject. That is, the subject of the possessive relationship can be expressed explicitly.

In the presented utterances, the nominal nouns of the concrete semantics, which are constituent components of the construction N’s+N, form part of the object common for them and implied by the context – a car. The noun driver, taking the position of the first component of the construction and having ’s, is a positional subject, while the functional subject of the possessive relationship – a car – is implicit by the context and not represented in the sentence itself.

This is especially typical in the metaphorical or idiomatic reinterpretation of the meaning of the construction N’s+N:

“Well, sorry to use a cliché, but I discovered h i s A c h i l l e s ’ h e e l .” [1*, p. 305].

Now let’s consider the peculiarities of the system of structural and syntactic formants of possessiveness.

Means of representation of the possessiveness at the syntactic level are the constructions N1 of N2, N1 with N2, N1+N2. The dictionary definitions of the prepositions reflect their systemic meaning of possessiveness:

of – belonging to, associated with, containing, having [1**, p. 434]. with – possessing, having [1**, p. 718].

As we see, the prepositions of and with are defined through the concepts having, owning and belonging. Due to their semantics, in the content of the category of possessiveness the pragmatic and semantic meanings “possession” and “belonging” are activated. At the same time, the preposition of is defined through the concept of association. This determines the activation in the content of the category of possessiveness of the pragmatic and semantic meaning “relation / reference to the subject”. These categorical meanings provide the basis for the possessive meaning formed during the process of verbal and cogitative activity. It is specified in an utterance due to the semantics of a lexical unit expressing the object of the possessive relation and/or the context of the situation.

Since the connection between the subject and the object of the possessive relationship is interdependent, let us consider which of the components of the analyzed constructions can express the subject of the possessive relationship.

135

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

In the constructions N1 of N2 and N1+N2, the subject of the possessive relation can be expressed by a noun, being both the first and the second component of the constructions. For example:

point, but when once she was established as a great actress she changed her mind [7*, p. 91].

In the given statements, the relationship of the possessiveness is formed by the construction N1 of N2. The subject of the possessive relation in (6) and (7) is expressed by the nominal nouns of the specific semantics owner and son, which are the first and second components of the construction, respectively. Due to this, it can be concluded that the noun denoting animate objects expresses the subject of the possessive relationship.

If the nouns of the construction express animate objects as, for example, in (8), then the subject of the possessive relation will be expressed by the noun taking the second position.

However, if both components of construction N1 of N2 are nouns denoting animate (8) or inanimate (4) objects, then the subject of the possessive relation will be expressed by the noun taking the position of the second component – the proper noun Borgias in (8) and the nominal noun of the specific semantics career in (9).

In the construction N1+N2, the subject of the possessive relation is expressed by a noun, which, as a rule, takes the position of the first component. For example:

(10) For millions of American adults, j u r y d u t y is life’s most prolonged contact with a government agency [3*, p. 192].

(11)“[…] Drogheda will become a f a m i l y c o n c e r n , run by the family without help from outsiders.” [5*, p. 65].

(12)It gave her a little thrill of pleasure to recollect that people had already been assem-

bling at the pit and g a l l e r y d o o r s when she left the theatre after the dress-rehearsal,

[…] [7*, p. 280].

So, in these sentences, the noun expressing the subject of the possessive relation is the first component of the construction N1+N2, regardless of whether it denotes animate (10), (11) or inanimate (12) objects.

If the noun occupying the position of the first component in the construction N1+N2 determines or characterizes the noun occupying the position of the second component of the construction, the subject of the possessive relation is expressed by the noun occupying the position of the second component.

(13) Conversation between me and t h e t a x i d r i v e r had rather dried up as we drove to the new address [1*, p. 218].

(14) Have bought marvelous new r e c i p e b o o k by Marco Pierre White [1*, p. 255].

In sentences (13), (14), the subject of the possessive relation is expressed by the common names of the specific semantics driver and book, which are the second component of the construction. This is due to the fact that the common names of the specific semantics taxi and recipe, taking the position of the first component of the construction and expressing the object of

136

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

the possessive relationship, characterize the sphere of activity (13) and the content (14) of the subject.

When a possessive meaning is formed with the help of the construction N1 with N2, the subject of the possessive relation is always expressed by a noun taking the position of the first component, regardless of its semantics.

(15) He was then a m a n of nearly forty, w i t h a small h e a d on an elegant body, not very good-looking but of distinguished appearance [7*, p. 91].

(16) It was a little more difficult when C h a r l e s , w i t h h i s fine s e n s i t i v e n e s s , saw that she was no longer in love with Michael [7*, p. 96].

(17) Any approach, such as that of much of mathematical e c o n o m i c s w i t h i t s simultaneous e q u a t i o n s , […] systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain

[9*, p. 13].

In sentence (15), the subject of the possessive relation is expressed by the common name of the concrete semantics man, denoting the animated object. In (16) the subject of the possessive relationship is expressed by the proper noun Charles. In example (17), the subject of the possessive relation is expressed by the common name of the abstract semantics economics, which denotes an inanimate object.

At the syntactic level, besides nouns the subject of the possessive relationship and the object of the possessive relationship can also be expressed by pronouns, usually personal, and the gerund:

H e was about forty, w i t h a short military h a i r c u t on the sides and a wisp of gray hair hanging almost to his eyebrows [4*, p. 118].

Her tenderness for Michael and h e r ever-present s e n s e o f h a v i n g b e e n for years u n j u s t to him filled her with contrition [7*, p. 226].

Like in the morphological construction, in the constructions N1 of N2 and N1+N2, the functional subject may not coincide with the positional subject.

She put a dressing-gown, […] a m a n ’ s d r e s s i n g - g o w n , in plum-coloured silk

[7*, p. 157].

[…] I want to be an editorial assistant and gain some m a g a z i n e w r i t i n g e x p e r i - e n c e [10*, p. 12].

“[…] I don’t want a n a i r - h o s t e s s b a g .” [1*, p. 8].

In the above examples, the functional subject of the possessive relation is expressed by the personal pronouns she and I, which are not integral components in the structure of the constructions N’s+N and N1+N2, i.e. it is presented explicitly.

Conclusion. As the study shows, the category of possessiveness is significant in the human cognitive system. It is proved by the variability of its representation in a language that is implemented at the lexical and grammatical levels. Properties and characteristics of the real world, comprehended by man, are fixed in language forms peculiar to each of the levels. The process of representation of the relation of possessiveness at this or that linguistic level is determined by a certain set of linguistic means. Thus, lexical means of representation of possessive relations are verbs of possessive semantics and possessive pronouns; at the morphological level, the category of possessiveness is expressed by the construction of N’s+N and at the syntactic level – N1 of N2, N1 with N2, N1+N2.

Language means indicate the emergence of a relationship of possessiveness between a subject and an object. Due to their systemic meaning, in the content of the category of possessiveness the pragmatic and semantic meanings “possession”, “belonging”, “acquisition or

137

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

change of ownership, belonging” or “relation / relation to the subject” are activated. Further, these meanings form the basis for the formation of a certain possessive meaning.

Analysis of the possessive nominations from the standpoint of the functional approach reveals the participation of the described units in combination with other means in the process of evolution of the functional dynamics of the English discourse system.

References

[1]Malahova V.L. Vlijanie diskursivnogo prostranstva na formirovanie pritjazhatel'nogo smysla / V.L. Malahova // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. – 2015. – № 2 (44).

–Ch. 1. – S. 138-140.

[2]Tomalin B., Maljuga E.N. Delovoj anglijskij v vek globalizacii / B. Tomalin, E.N. Maljuga // Voprosy prikladnoj lingvistiki. – 2016. – № 24. – S. 7-18.

[3]Fomina Z.E. Innovacii v sfere russkogo kommunikativnogo povedenija kak social'no obuslovlennye refleksii novoj rossijskoj dejstvitel'nosti / Z.E. Fomina // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Serija: Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2011. – Vyp. 15. – S. 166-179.

[4]McCarthy M. Usage on the move: evolution and re-volution / M. McCarthy // Training language and culture. – 2017. – Vol. 1. – Issue 2. – P. 8-22.

[5]Ponomarenko E.V., Radjuk A.V. Smyslovoj sinergizm kak osnova aktualizacii kommunikativnyh strategij i taktik anglijskogo delovogo diskursa / E.V. Ponomarenko, A.V. Radjuk // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Serija: Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2013. – Vyp. 2 (20). – S. 34-42.

[6]Khramchenko D.S. Planning the functional field of business English discourse: linguosynergetic approach / D.S. Khramchenko // Voprosy prikladnoj lingvistiki. – 2015. – № 18.

–S. 151-163.

[7]Byhtina N.V., Malahova V.L. Ispol'zovanie sovremennyh interaktivnyh metodov obuchenija na zanjatijah inostrannogo jazyka kak uslovie formirovanija professional'noj kul'tury specialista organov vnutrennih del / N.V. Byhtina, V.L. Malahova // Problemy pravoohranitel'noj dejatel'nosti. – 2013. – № 2. – S. 46-48.

[8]Kuznecova K.V. Jekonomicheskij diskurs kak ob#ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovanija i ego osnovnye aspekty / K.V. Kuznecova // Voprosy prikladnoj lingvistiki. – M.: RUDN, 2015. – Vypusk 2 (18). – S. 72-79.

[9]Ledeneva S.N. Funkcional'no-pragmaticheskie svojstva jazykovyh sredstv reklamnogo diskursa / S.N. Ledeneva // Vestnik Brjanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – 2017. – № 1. – S. 306-312.

[10]Maljuga E.N. Lingvokul'turnaja specifika professional'nogo anglojazychnogo jekonomicheskogo diskursa / E.N. Maljuga // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Serija: Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodikodidakticheskie issledovanija. – 2014. – Vyp. 2 (22). – S. 33-40.

[11]Fomina Z.E. Meteorologicheskie poslovichnye primety s imenem svjatogo v nemeckom lingvokul'turnom soobshhestve/ Z.E. Fomina // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo arhitekturno-stroitel'nogo universiteta. Ser. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija. – 2015. – vyp. 2 (26). – S. 129–146.

[12]Kobrina N.A., Boldyrev N.N., Hudjakov A.A. Teoreticheskaja grammatika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka / N.A. Kobrina, N.N. Boldyrev, A.A. Hudjakov. – M.: Vysshaja shkola, 2007. – 368 s.

[13]Boldyrev N.N., Tolmacheva I.N. Kategorii znamenatel'nosti i sluzhebnosti v jazyke / N.N. Boldyrev, I.N. Tolmacheva // Kognitivnye issledovanija jazyka. – 2014. – № 17. – S. 369-375.

138

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

market reaction to the challenger crash / M.T. Maloney, J.H. Mulherin // Readings in applied microeconomics. The power of the market. – L., N.Y.: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group, 2009. – P.61-87.

[7*] Maugham W.S. Theatre / W.S. Maugham. – M., 2005. – 304 p.

[8*] Brown D. Angels and demons / D. Brown. – L.: Corgi, 2002. – 620 p.

[9*] Hayek F.A. The use of knowledge in society / F.A. Hayek // Readings in applied mi-croeconomics. The power of the market. – L., N.Y.: Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group, 2009. – P. 4-13.

[10*] Weisberger L. The devil wears Prada / L. Weisberger. – N.Y., L., Toronto, Sydney, Auckland, 2003. – 360 p.

Dictionaries used

[1**] Hornby A.S., C. Ruse. Oxford student’s dictionary of current English / A.S. Hornby, C. Ruse. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. – 748 p.

[2**] Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary. – Harper Collins Publishers, 2006. – 1768 p.

139

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

INFORMATION ABOUT CONFERENCES

Z.Ye. Fomina

On the results of the International scientific conference: “Concept FAITH in different languages and cultures”. Institute of linguistics of the Russian academy of sciences. Problem group "linguistic and cultural studies", Moscow, September 28-30, 2017

From 28 to 30 September, the International Scientific Conference "The Concept FAITH in Different Languages and Cultures" was held at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) (Moscow). The conference was attended by scientists from numerous universities of Moscow (Moscow State University of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow State University, Peoples' Friendship University, Moscow State Linguistic University, etc.), of St. Petersburg, Kazan, Tula, Chelyabinsk, Irkutsk, Samara, Voronezh, Tver, Saransk, Yelets, Mogilev, Yekaterinburg and many others, as well as by foreign colleagues - from Poland, China, Belarus, etc.

The working languages of the conference were Russian and English.

The welcoming speech was delivered by Professor Andrei A. Kibrik, Director of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Professor Maria L. Kovshova, Head of the Problem Group.

The idea of the conference, as noted in the newsletter, "was inspired by the talks with Nina D. Arutyunova." The conference dealt with the detailed and multilateral discussion of the phenomenon "FAITH" in different aspects, in particular, in the logical, structural, conceptual and comparative-and-historical ones. The central themes for considering the phenomenon "Faith" were the following:

1)The concept Faith in religion and in life; 2) Faith in scientific and philosophical text;

3)Faith in culturological aspect; 4) Faith in the field of ethics; 5) Faith in intellectual and communicative spaces; 6) The Lexicon of Faith; 7) Phraseology and the spiritual code of culture. 8) Faith in people`s consciousness; 9) The concept and images of Faith in artistic worlds of literature; 10) The images of Faith in different forms and types of art (iconpainting, painting, sculpture, dance, music, cinema). Peculiarities of their interpretation in art criticism, religious and everyday discourses.

In total, over 100 reports were listened to. Twelve reports were presented at the plenary session.

The topical plenary report on the theme: "Faith as the Basis of the World Perception and World Understanding in the Russian Linguistic Picture of the World" was made by Professor Timur B. Radbil (Professor of the Department of Applied Linguistics and Intercultural Communication of the Higher School of Economics (Nizhny Novgorod branch).) The author comes to the conclusion that "in some phenomenological sense, Faith is something most important for us. Faith is something essential, fundamental for human type of existence. It is a special organ of the orientation in the world, cultural mastery of reality and understanding its place in the world". As the speaker emphasizes, Faith is a feeling of an invisible presence, in the world outside of us and within us, some order in the world of chaos and entropy, some absolute, the main law of being, which are undoubted and axiomatic ones, and therefore, do not need a logical verification. As the author points out, we can claim with reasonable confidence, that linguistic data testify that in the Russian world, it is FAITH that is the basic way for the combined, spiritual, valued and behavioral activity of the ethnos, the main component of the national identity.

Irina I. Makeeva (Ph.D. in Philology, Senior Research Officer of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Institute of the Russian Language)) considered the problem: "Faithful - Unfaithful in the History of the Russian Language". The author noted that the semantics of the adjectives

140

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

faithful and unfaithful in the history of the Russian language (XI-XVIII centuries) was rather various and covered not only the sphere of ethics and the mental sphere, but also the sphere of religion. This is, according to the speaker, the main difference from the modern Russian language, in which the religious concept the faithful has passed to the word believer. During the XI-XVIII centuries the share of the religious sphere accounts for the majority of usage.

Sophia Yu. Semenova (Ph.D. in Philology, Senior Research Officer of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the RAS, Associate Professor of the RSUH), devoted her report to the consideration of the Russian parametric noun probability, its etymology (as a philosophical-and-mathematical term), and the contextual environment in everyday and scientific discourse. In the author`s opinion, it seems remarkable that the Russian language is one of the few European languages in which the designation of the scientific concept probability is connected with the word Faith; in a number of other European languages, this term is associated with the ideas of possibility and likelihood. The similar word likelihood has also been included into the Russian terminology of probability theory.

Tatyana Ye. Yanko (FSBIS Institute of Linguistics of the RAS, Doctor in Philology) considered the problem: "Reliability and Probability: Regular Polysemy in the Mirror of Russian Prosody". As the author emphasized, if earlier, there was put forward the hypothesis that certain communicative roles corresponded to certain additional meanings of words, now it was possible to supplement the couple "semantic content - communicative function" with the third component: "semantic content - communicative function - prosodic construction". Words with the meaning of verity (the words of the semantic “nest” of fidelity - truth -verity) have the additional meanings 'reliably' and 'probably' to which there correspond the fixed communicative roles of the verified rheme and parenthesis, respectively. These communicative functions are expressed by the certain prosodic constructions.

The other plenary reports were made by Prof. S. A. Krylova, Prof. O. E. Frolova, Prof. N. G. Bragina, Prof. Dorothy Pazio-Vlazlovskaya and others.

Olga Ye. Frolova (Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Ph.D. in Pedagogy, Research Officer of the Russian Language Department of the Philological Faculty of Moscow State University) presented the results of studying the concepts Faith and Distrust on the basis of numerous lexicographic sources. The author stressed that the dictionaries give a different number of meanings for the verbs to entrust and to trust.

Natalia G. Bragina (State Institute of the Russian Language named after A. S. Pushkin, Professor of the Department of Russian Literature and Intercultural Communication of RSUH) considered the development history of connotations of the four words: atheist, nonbeliever, nihilist, agnostic. The author notes that these words belong to a common connotative and semantic field. "Having some similar set of semantic features and similar contexts of the use, they express different linguistic ideas about the meaning of unbelief in general, and how its different aspects are being profiled in language." The report considered the socio-cultural aspects of unbelief expressed in cultural connotations and fixed in different types of discourse.

Of great interest was the report by Dorota Pazio Vlazovskaya (Institute of Slavonic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Research Officer, Deputy Director, Ph.D. in Humanities) on the topic: "What are "zahozhane"? Drafts to the lexical portrait". The name of the report is characterized by an unusual and original formulation of the problem. The research is devoted to the analysis of reflecting the changes in the attitude of Russian people towards Faith and towards the church, in particular, Orthodox, at the level of vocabulary. Proceeding from the statement about the religious renaissance in Russia, the author suggests looking at it through the prism of vocabulary, resorting to the method of case-study.

The reporter noted that the word "zahozhane" is practically not used in the Russian language. Nevertheless, she managed to find 200 quotes in Runet with the word of her interest. The word "zahozhane" means the following: these are the people whose names are not known to us, they come to church for some time. D. Pazio-Vlazovskaya studied the semantics and spe-

141

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

cific character of the use of the word "zahozhane" in comparison with the lexeme "parishioners" and came to the conclusion that the colloquial word "zahozhane" is used in the church environment mainly by clergymen and parishioners with negative connotations. At present, it receives almost terminological status in the classification of different groups of church people and those who have indirect attitude to church.

Of great interest was the plenary reports of Prof. N. A. Nikolina (MSPU) "The Word-

Forming “Nest” of "Faith" in the Russian Language (against the background of other Slavonic languages)"; the report of Prof. G. N. Sklyarevskaya (St. Petersburg University) "Reflections on the Status of the Vocabulary of Orthodoxy in Modern Russian"; the report of Prof. E. Konefal (Gdansk University) "On the Attributes of Faith (according to the data of the Russian and Polish languages)"; the report of Prof. E. R. Yoanesyan (Institute of Linguistics, the RAS, Moscow) "Faith and Fear"; the report of Prof. V. Vysochansky "Conceptualization of Faith in Phraseology"; the report of Prof. V. A. Maslova (Vitebsk University) "Spiritual code of Russian lin- guo-culture: the sacred aspect".

3 sections worked during 3 days.

SECTION 1 "Faith in the mirror of phraseology and paramiology", focused on the research of the conceptualization of Faith in phraseology (on the basis of different languages). So, Louise K. Bajramova (Kazan Federal University, Professor, Doctor in Philology), considering phraseology as a code of spiritual culture, pays special attention to the problem of reflecting "Faith in verity, Truth in phraseological units of the Russian Language." The author concludes that Faith in verity is expressed by the phraseological units connected with the following themes: to speak the truth directly, frankly; to reveal, to show, to learn the truth; etc. Proverbs, sayings, aphorisms, reflecting faith in truth assert the following ideas: God loves truth. People thirst for truth, etc. Verity has many friends, champions. Unbelief in the existence / in the victory of truth: Great is the Holy Russian land, but there is no place for truth. There is no truth on the earth, but there is no truth above, either (A. S. Pushkin, "Mozart and Salieri").

Professor O. A. Meshcheryakova (Yelets State University named after I. Bunin), Associate Professor N.V. Shesterkina (Mordovia State University named after N. Ogarev) examined Russian riddles about the three religious fasts that are observed by Christians: Advent fast (Christmas), Apostles`s fast (in honor of St. Peter and St. Paul) and Lent (in honor of Easter).

Helen N. Tsvetaeva (Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor of Moscow State Linguistic University, Head of the Chair of Lexicology and Stylistics of the German Language Faculty) delivered the report on the topic: "Faithfulness and Faith" in German Law: on the History of the Phraseological unit auf Treu und Glauben". The author spoke about the modern German phraseological unit auf Treu und Glauben "on honest word, on faith," rooted in ancient law, combining the motives of both the Germanic religious and legal world-outlook, and Roman legal traditions. Of no small importance for the processes of phraseological analysis is the history of the semantics of the both nominal components, which are not accidentally formed part of the one stable expression.

Maria V. Yasinskaya (Ph.D. in Philology, Research Officer of the Institute of Slavonic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) delivered the report on the theme: "One`s Own and Others' Faith in the Narratives of the Residents of Beshenkovichi, the Former Belarusian Town (based on the expedition materials)." The author analyzed "oral stories of the residents of the former Belarusian town about the poly-confessional past and the present of Beshenkovichi, where before the war, the share of the Jewish population was more than 50%, the Belarusian part of the inhabitants professed both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and in the district, there were also Old Belief communities." The reporter noted that at present the Jewish population is almost completely absent, as well as the representatives of Old Believers, but the memory of them is still preserved in the narratives of the old Belarusians.

Professor Maria L. Kovshova (Institute of Linguistics of the RAS, Moscow) made the report on the theme: "End-to-end" Images of Faith in Russian Idioms and Paremias". The subject

142

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 4 (19), 2017 ISSN 2587-8093

of the linguo-cultural research is the semantics of Russian proverbs, riddles and idioms, in which the images of Faith were reflected. The author substantiated the thesis that paremias and idioms had special sense connections, essential for understanding Russian mentality. So, in the figurative semantics of proverbs, sayings, riddles and idioms with the components "bell", "bells", there finds its embodiment, the most important for Russian traditional culture, the sense of opposing the attribute to the essence of fact, sound (word) - to the deed. The traditional meanings are understood by Prof. M. Kovshova as a certain amount of meaningful signs, which make up, in the semantics of verbal signs, an earlier cultural and semantic "layer" connecting the semantics of verbal signs with the semantics of traditional culture.

SECTION 2 “The concept faith in religious and philosophic al texts” considered a number of interesting and informative reports, in particular, the report by N. N. Goncharova “The Main Features of the Concept "Faith" in the New Testament”; the report by S. N. Glazkova “Proverbs about Faith as Text; the report by T. F. Kuzennaya “Peculiarities of the Dichotomy Soul - Body in the Old Russian Language”; the report by S. G. Shulezhkova “Faith and Unbelief in the Slavonic Texts of the 10th-11th Centuries through Phraseological Prism; the report by L. K. Gavryushina “ Russian Spiritual Verses as a Mirror of People's Faith; the report by E. A. Vlasova “Linguistic Peculiarities of Expressing Faith in the Texts of "New Piety" (based on handwritten prayer-books from the collection of the Russian National Library); the report by Yu. V. Koreneva “Reasoning: the Semantics of Word in the Sermons of Reverend Elders” (on the texts of symphonies); the report by K.G. Krasoukhina “Faith, Proof and Absurdity in Apologetics and Patristic Studies”, and many others.

Of great interest was the report delivered by Larissa V. Filindash (Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor of Moscow State University of Management), who considered hesychasm as the basis of Russian holiness. The author spoke of hesychasm as God-cognition, as the method of God-contact. Among the key concepts discussed in the report were: the mystery of the Holy Spirit from the position of hesychasm, the essence of energies, the uncreated light (the light of the Mount Fabor)), etc. Grace and uncreated light can be seen through the spiritual eyes through GOD-deification, which is one of the most important components in the doctrine of hesychasm. The central place is occupied by icon. In the opinion of V. V.Bychkov, to whom L. V. Filindash refers, the 14th century is the flourishing of icon-painting, the flowering of Russian classical culture. In his opinion, "the genius of Russian man is in icon-painting". L. V. Filindash spoke about the two great painters Theophane the Greek and Andrei Rublev in the comparative aspect. In her opinion, both brilliant masters painted icons on similar themes (the theme of "Trinity", the theme of "The Day of Judgement"), etc. However, if the icons of Theophanes the Greek are the ladder to the Transfiguration, then A. Rublev`s icons are the Transfiguration itself.

Professor Valentina A. Stepanenko (Doctor in Philology, Professor of the Chair of German Philology. "IGLU", Irkutsk) focused on the theme "Modeling Method in Theo-linguistics: Creation Model of the World (based on the English, Russian and German Material)". The author noted that the method of modeling in theology is based on the ontological doctrine of layers, i.e. understanding the reality as the order of "layers of being" (Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Hartmann, Vernadsky, and many others). The analysis of verbal and non-verbal representatives of such religious concepts as "Dusha" "Seele", "Soul", "Weihnachten" and "Tattoo" based on the material of the Russian, German and English languages revealed the two more "lacking" layers - the kingdom of elements and the underground kingdom (along with the five known stages of the world development: the mineral (or inorganic) kingdom, vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom, human kingdom and the Kingdom of God). This is explained by the fact that, according to the speaker, various forms of outlook and, above all, natural-and- scientific, mythological and religious forms have been and continue to be typical for man, throughout the centuries. "The model constructed by us can have a universal character, as the

143