Российский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы

Казанский (Приволжский) федеральный университет

Московский государственный университет имени М.В. Ломоносова
Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет
Российское общество преподавателей русского языка и литературы (РОПРЯЛ)
Фонд «Русский мир»

РУССКИЙ ЯЗЫК
В СОВРЕМЕННОМ НАУЧНОМ
И ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОМ
ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ

Сборник статей
Всероссийской конференции
с международным участием

Москва, РУДН, 13 апреля 2023 г.

Москва
Российский университет дружбы народов им. Патриса Лумумбы
2023
УДК 811.161.1:372.881.161.1(063) Утверждено
ББК 81.411.2+74.268.19=411.2 РИС Ученого совета
Р89 Российского университета
дружбы народов

Редакционная коллегия:
О.В. Анциферова, А.Ф. Гайнутдинова, Е.О. Грунина, С.А. Дерябина,
Д.В. Колесова, Т.Н. Колосова, О.Н. Короткова, Л.В. Красильникова,
С.С. Микова, И.И. Митрофанова, А.Р. Салахова, Л.А. Смоленцева,
Т.П. Трошкина

Под общей редакцией

В.М. Шаклеина

Р89 Русский язык в современном научном и образова-

тельном пространстве : сборник статей Всероссийской
конференции с международным участием / под общ. ред.
В. М. Шаклеина. – Москва : РУДН, 2023. – 451 с. : ил.

В сборнике представлены тексты докладов участников Между-

народной научно-практической конференции молодых ученых «Изучение
и преподавание русского языка в разных лингвокультурных средах». До-
клады участников конференции посвящены теоретическим и прикладным
вопросам русистики, преподаванию русского языка в разных лингвокуль-
турных средах, цифровым технологиям в изучении и преподавании язы-
ка, русскому слову в художественном тексте, русской лингвокультуре
в эпоху глобализации.
Издание предназначено для филологов, преподавателей русского
языка и широкого круга читателей, интересующихся вопросами препода-
вания языка в естественной языковой и внеязыковой среде.
Статьи публикуются в авторской редакции.

ISBN 978-5-209-11794-0 © Оформление. Российский университет

дружбы народов, 2023
 2. Величко А.В. Русский язык в текстах о филологии: пособие для иностранных
учащихся / А.В.Величко, Л.П. Юдина. – 2-е изд., испр. – М.: Русский язык. Курсы, 2016.
– 256 с.
3. Вишняков С.А. Культура России от Древней Руси до наших дней
[Электронный курс]: учебное пособие / С.А.Вишняков. – 6-е изд., стер. – М.: Флинта,
2020. – 72 с.
4. Максименко Ю.М. Путешествия за чудесами: путеводитель по Золотому
кольцу России и не только / Ю.М. Максименко. – М.: Изд. Осипенко А.И., 2011. – 255
с.
5. Московский Кремль: Путеводитель / Гос. историко-культурный музей-
заповедник «Московский Кремль»; сост. Дмитриева О. – М.:Арт-Курьер, 2007. – 127 с.
6. Мусский С.А. Самые знаменитые композиторы России / С.А. Мусский. – М.:
Вече, 2004. – 477 с.
7. Народное искусство: Путеводитель по залам Русского музея / Русский музей;
автор текста Ирина Богуславская. 2-е изд., – Санкт-Петербург: : Palace Editions, 2020. –
130 с.
8. Словарь русского языка в 4-х томах // Гл.редактор А.П. Евгеньева. – М.:
Русский язык, 1983., т.2. –736 с.
9. Соловьева Ю.А. География. Раздел «География России» на основном
государственном экзамене / Ю.А. Соловьева, А.Б. Эртель. – М.: АСТ, 2019. – 91 с.
10. Третьяковская галерея (Москва). Краткий путеводитель / Гос. Третьяковская
галерея. – М.: Искусство, 1957. – 115 с.
11. Эрмитаж (Ленинград). Русская культура XVIII века: Путеводители по
выставкам / Гос. Эрмитаж. Под общей редакцией проф. М.И. Артамонова. – М.:
Искусство, 1955. – 50 с.

С.А. Волков
(Высший институт языков Туниса Университета Карфагена)
МЕНТАЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ И СМЫСЛООБРАЗОВАНИЕ
В ОБУЧЕНИИ МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНОМУ ОБЩЕНИЮ

Аннотация. В статье актуализируется вопрос, как использование когнитивных

структур влияет на практику преподавания и реальность межкультурной
коммуникации в плане методического осмысливания концептуальной картины мира,
решения лингвистических и психологических проблем. В частности, анализируется
концептуальный объект «свет» в связи с формированием ментального поля студентов
и порождения смыслов в арабской и русской языковых культурах.
Ключевые слова: когнитивный подход, концептуальный объект, ментальное
поле, смыслообразование.

S.A. Volkov
(Higher Institute of Languages of Tunis of University of Carthage)
MENTAL FIELD AND SENSE-GIVING
IN TEACHING COMMUNICATION INTERCULTURALLY

Abstract. This article discusses how the use of cognitive structures shape teaching
practice and reality of intercultural communication in terms of making senses of the world,
solving language and psychological issues. Specifically, we examine how the conceptual

124
object “light” forms a mental field and provokes sense-giving in Arabic and Russian linguistic
cultures.
Keywords: cognitive approach, conceptual object, mental field, sense-giving.

Communicating effectively across cultures and languages is a vital skill for educators
and educatees. Topically, it stresses the importance of developing a mental field that enables
them to understand, respect, and appreciate cultural diversity. This will facilitate interaction
with those from different cultural backgrounds. This article offers a technique for enhancing
students’ linguistic and intellectual competences by fostering a mental field and designing a
sense-giving process through the analysis of the conceptual object “light”.
Cognitive Grammar by Ronald Langacker, one of the earliest works in cognitive
linguistics, has methodological significance for the purpose of the topic stated. This theory
holds that, at the semantic pole, grammar is articulated in abstracted patterns of conceptual
integration, which extends to grammatical, semantic, and lexical components [see Langacker
2008; 540]. As it covers both formal and informal aspects of language, it also helps understand
how language functions to make sense.
Since we rely on our implicit knowledge of the context and background of our
utterances to convey and interpret meaning, Michael Polanyi defined sense-giving as the
process of giving speech meaning by creating a structure of tacit knowing [Polanyi 1967]. In
this instance, we believe that sense-giving is mainly subject to non-linguistic cognitive
principles.
Since this act is a thinking unit, it qualifies for study in connection with the mental
spaces theory developed by Gilles Fauconnier. “Mental spaces – the connections linking them
[speech, thought, and communication], the linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural strategies for
constructing them – are a significant part of what is happening backstage, behind the scenes,
in the cognitive background of everyday speaking and commonsense reasoning” [Fauconnier
1994: xvii–xviii].
We favour using the term “mental field” because it more accurately describes how we
establish value hierarchies. It may refer to a person’s subjective experience of his thoughts,
feelings, sensations, and stimuli, as well as, conventionally speaking, to the logical and
semantic modelling and language processing. The interplay or exchange of senses
(modalities, semantic meanings, concepts), which might exist in mental space independently
of each other, gives rise to the mental field. In certain words, when thinking, the senses build
a field around themselves. The mental space has a boundaryless structure and is, thus, a kind
of platform for the mental field, which is a sense-giving space. In our terms, the mental field
is a cognitive formation with an identity range for real-world referents or objects that are
perceived, thought over, and interpreted through a linguistic person’s attitudes, values,
beliefs, and assumptions, or within communicative tools as well as in relating or juxtaposing
linked objects. According to specified criteria, object identity is determined by the number of
senses it can contain, considering the target linguistic cultures. In this field, an arbitrary sense
“crystallizes out” to become an invariant of communication from there. Against this
background, the sense, which forms the basis of culture [see Zinchenko 2016; 6, 8], is thought
over in relation to intercultural communication. Sense-giving is the mechanism by which
information exchange impacts how others interpret and make sense of objects or events. If so,
we address the cognitive approach to communication from the perspective of a cognitively
focused learning paradigm. The mental field delineation precisely meets one of its
applications in education discourse when a students’ thinking activities (analytical skills,
reasoning, and inference), language thinking (linguistic and ethnic identity), and competency

125
in linguistic and cultural subjects (meaningfulness) can all come to the mind of the teacher.
In other words, the teacher is able to see how an individual or group thinks about an idea. As
a result, he or she gains a helpful tool for overseeing the intellectual activities of students in
conjunction with their ability to integrate information in a semantic and grammatical way.
This includes data capture, analysis, and the articulation of patterns and commonalities. The
tool can be used both in the classroom and as a method of supervising students’ research. By
integrating cognitive-semantic restructuring and communication, we can also create a
conducive environment for assimilating linguistic and cultural insights. When students
interpret the meaning conveyed by a significant verbal or nonverbal sign employed in any
given linguistic culture, cognitive-semantic restructuring is seen as a way to manage their
intellectual and emotional state. Cognitive or non-cognitive, understandable or not, ignorant
or not ignorant, intriguing or boring are some examples of notions that might be associated to
a mental state. An internal feeling such as anticipation that causes annoyance, elation,
resentment, or satisfaction is an example of an emotional state.
An example that illustrates and supports the theoretical findings is the overlaps and
divergences between mental fields in different cultures. The question “Have you seen the light
at the end of the tunnel?”, which I once asked (in Russian) in a conversation with an Arab
after he had suffered a serious illness, proved to be inappropriate and even confusing for the
intention of using the meaning it contained, all the more so as it was underpinned by the
emphatic emphasis on the idiom “light at the end of the tunnel”.
It is apparent that phraseological units of another language cannot be fully assimilated.
The essential thing here, however, is the premise of judging and assessing the semantic charge
of the components of a free phrase depending on the communicative act. In our example, the
main issue is the appropriateness of the idea of the tunnel as a road leading to the beyond and,
above all, the understanding of the meaning, sensing of the key concept represented by the
word “light”. The presence of similar moments of meaning in the fixed phrases or chunks (in
this case, “transfer to heaven” or “encounter with God”) does not necessarily indicate an
understanding of the integrity of those established collocations, although they are present in
both languages (Russian and Arabic). We can observe it when “(seeing) the light at the end
of the tunnel” is used by Christians as a euphemism for “leaving life”. It is the multi-
dimensionality of the meaning of the word “light,” say, in English or Russian and the
unambiguity in Arabic that confuses the interlocutor for a reason. Conceivably, the parallel
analysis of the intended object based on archetypal representations and mentalization as a
process of perception and reinterpretation shall offer the way to explain that reason. Since we
are talking about the archetype, it would be justified to refer to the sacred writings and the
Mohammedan scriptures that “nourish” every culture and constitute its permanence and
consistency.
In the Old and New Testament, the phrase “to see the light” means seeing the light of
God: “He [God] rescued them [people] from the grave so they may enjoy the light of life”
(Job 33:30) [Holy Bible, 2007: 631]; “God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all” (1
John 1:5) [Holy Bible, 2007: 1439]; “No longer will you need the sun to shine by day, nor the
moon to give its light by night, for the Lord your God will be your everlasting light” (Isaiah
60:19) [Holy Bible, 2007: 869]. The biblical concept of the Lord as light is explained by the
fact that the light, which means justice and goodness, constitutes God’s essence: God is an
absolute power, free from all sin and injustice. Light is the beginning of all beginnings, the
first generation of the Creator, and it is only natural that in Islam “Allah is the Light of the
heavens and the earth” (24:35) [The Holy Qur’an, 2006: 348], that is, the Creator of forms is
the bearer of light. The words of Jesus Christ, as his “valid testimony”, “I am the light of the

126
world” (John, 8:12) [Holy Bible, 2007: 1251] as well as “I have come as a light to shine in
this dark world” (John 12:46) [Holy Bible, 2007: 1259] mark his role as messenger and bearer
of God’s truth and spirituality. The Qur'an says: “Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light:
Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things” (24:35) [The Holy
Qur’an, 2006: 348], meaning that the light is Allah Himself, and faith and the Qur'an are light
from Him, light to which He guides. The light is also a symbol of the Prophet Mohammad:
“… there hath come to you from Allah a (new) light [Our Messenger] and a perspicuous
Book” (5:15) [The Holy Qur’an 2006; 112–113], as well as the Gospel (Injil) given to Jesus,
“therein was guidance and light” (5:46) [The Holy Qur’an 2006; 118]. It is also worth
recalling at this point that before Muhammad became God’s Chosen One, he hid in a mountain
called Djabal an-Nour. The “Mountain of Light” can be seen as a kind of allegorical image
of light. Before the creation of man, Allah created the angels from light [Ali-zade 2007; 430],
and in the Bible we read: “Suddenly, there was a bright light in the cell, and an angel of the
Lord stood before Peter” (Acts 12:7), “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2
Corinthians 11:14) [Holy Bible 2007; 1288, 1361], so they too are associated with the light.
Moreover, Uriel, the name of the archangel, is interpreted in the original Hebrew as “the light
of God or God is light”. Incidentally, the tracing of the Greek “angel” and the Arabic word
“malấk” have the same meaning “messenger”, i.e., the one who conveys the will of God or
Allah to human beings and performs his mediating role between the high and the low worlds.
The mental field encompassing the general idea of light among both Christians and Muslims
thus includes God Himself, the Prophet, the Scriptures, and the angels.
Light is a metaphor for spirituality and associated with the divine gift in both cultures.
It is perceived as the basis for knowing the truth and clearing the dark spots that life has
prepared. It is therefore only natural that the phrases “seeing the light” and “seeing the light
at the end of the tunnel” occur in Christian and Islamic linguistic and cultural areas. In the
minds of Europeans, this is the obvious, if not quick, way out of a difficult situation. In the
Qur'an, the identical expressions “seeing the light” and “seeing the light at the end of the
tunnel” are not found, but they are used by Arabic speakers in the sense of “having hope”:
“You have revived hope in me and made me see a glimmer of light that has flared up after
such a long suffering”; “And yet the light at the end of the tunnel is still far away”. These
utterances are associated with striving towards the Lord and believing that he will accept the
supplicant’s request, “So, verily, with every difficulty, there is relief” (94:5) [The Holy
Qur’an 2006; 596].
So, in the Arabs’ mental field, the cross-functional, heterogeneous idea of light has the
pull of semantic meanings associated with the power of life, either this or that. Therefore, it
has nothing to do with the death conception at the fringe of consciousness. The latter refers
to the idea that light is the first thing the soul, which has allegedly departed the body, can see.
And this rules out the use of the phraseology in any other context when cultural parallelism
and, respectively, the parallelism of the mental fields of two or more identities leave lacunae
in the accurate comprehension of some other meaningful elements.
A consideration of how the mental field localizes the conceptual object of light in
connection with culture factors, including such valuable resources as visual images and
artistic words, is a prospect for further research.

References
1. Ali-zade, A. (2007). Islamskij jenciklopedicheskij slovar' [Islamic
Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo «Ansar». [In Russian].

127
 2. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in
Natural language. Cambridge: University Press. First published in 1985. 190 p.
3. Holy Bible. (2007). New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream, Illinois:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.1564 p.
4. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 562 p.
5. Polanyi, M. (1967). Sense-Giving and Sense-Reading. Philosophy, 42 (162),
301–325. DOI:10.1017/S0031819100001509.
6. The Holy Qur'an. (2006). English translation of the meanings by Abdullah
Yusuf Ali. Dar Al-Kitab Al-Aziz. 605 p.
7. Yuan, J. (1987). Mind is a field, a certainty field. Journal of Social and
Biological Structures, 10 (3), 283–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(87)90026-1.
8. Zinchenko, V.G., Zusman, V.G., Kirnose, Z.I. and Ryabov, G.P. (2016). Slovar'
po mezhkul'turnoj kommunikacii: Ponjatija i personalii [Dictionary of Intercultural
Communication: Concepts and Personalities]. 2nd ed. Moscow: FLINTA. 136 p. [In Russian].

Литература
1. Али-заде, А. Исламский энциклопедический словарь. – М.: Ансар, 2007. –
400 с.
2. Зинченко, В.Г. Словарь по межкультурной коммуникации: Понятия и
персоналии / В.Г. Зинченко, В.Г. Зусман, З.И. Кирнозе, Г.П. Рябов. – М.: ФЛИНТА,
2016. – 136 с.
3. Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in
Natural language. Cambridge: University Press. First published in 1985. 190 p.
4. Holy Bible. (2007). New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream, Illinois:
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.1564 p.
5. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 562 p.
6. Polanyi, M. (1967). Sense-Giving and Sense-Reading. Philosophy, 42 (162),
301–325. DOI:10.1017/S0031819100001509.
7. The Holy Qur'an (2006). English translation of the meanings by Abdullah Yusuf
Ali. Dar Al-Kitab Al-Aziz. 605 p.
8. Yuan, J. (1987). Mind is a field, a certainty field. Journal of Social and
Biological Structures, 10 (3), 283–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(87)90026-1.

Галкин Г.Н.
(Российский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса
Лумумбы)
ДИСКУРС КАК ИНСТРУМЕНТ АКТИВИЗАЦИИ АУДИТИВНЫХ НАВЫКОВ

Аннотация. В статье поднимаются вопросы в обращения к дискурсу как

инструменту, позволяющему работать с аудированием на новом качественном уровне.
В работе характеризуется дискурс, а также его разновидности. Автор обращается к
понятию «фрейм» и «сценарию речевого поведения», рассматривает их как
потенциальный инструмент работы с аудированием, позволяющий раскрыть
потенциал учащегося.
Ключевые слова: дискурс, аудирование, фрейм, сценарии речевого поведения,
русский как иностранный.

128