Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin
RU EN






Today: 08.01.2026
Home Search
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Bulletin Archive
    • 2025 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2024 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2023 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2022 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2021 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2020 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2019 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 2018 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
    • 2017 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2016 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2015 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2014 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2013 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2012 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2011 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2010 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2009 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2008 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2007 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
    • 2006 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2005 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2004 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2003 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
    • 2002 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2001 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
    • 2000 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 1999 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 1998 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 1997 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
  • Search
  • Rating
  • News
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Review Procedure
  • Information for Readers
  • Editor’s Publisher Ethics
  • Contacts
  • Manuscript submission
  • Received articles
  • Accepted articles
  • Subscribe
  • Service Entrance
vestnik.tspu.ru
praxema.tspu.ru
ling.tspu.ru
npo.tspu.ru
edujournal.tspu.ru

TSPU Bulletin is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal.

E-LIBRARY (РИНЦ)
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Google Scholar
European reference index for the humanities and the social sciences (erih plus)
Search by Author
- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
Яндекс.Метрика

Search

- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
  • - Not selected -

#SearchDownloads
1

THE UNIVERSAL AND UNIQUE STEREOTYPES IN FRENCH AND RUSSIAN CULTURES (DATA: RUSSIAN AND FRENCH PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH GASTRONOMICAL TERMS) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2013. Issue 10 (138). P. 9-16

The article deals with studying the notions “stereotype”, “ethnocultural stereotype” and “national cultural stereotype” in cultural linguistics. The juxtaposition of archetypically meaningful stereotypes of two cultures is made as a result of linguocultural comparative analysis of phraseological units containing gastronomical terms, which have been singled out in the Russian and French languages. The general (universal) and specific (unique) stereotypes reflecting peculiarities of Russian and French cultures are determined.

Keywords: stereotype, ethnocultural stereotype, phraseological units, gastronomical terms, comparative analysis, universal stereotypes, unique stereotypes, the Russian language, the French language

1492
2

FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS DENOMINATING “BREAD” IN THE FRENCH AND RUSSIAN LANGUAGES (LINGUOCULTUROLOGICAL AND DISCURSIVE ASPECTS) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2017. Issue 6 (183). P. 107-111

The paper analyses figurative expressions with the denomination “bread” in the French and Russian languages. Figurative expressions of a language serve as an important source for getting information about national world perception because they reflect the spiritual and material culture in the language. The choice for figurative expressions with the components representing food is explained by the fact that food is one of the most vivid elements of national culture which is connected with the native speakers’ understanding of their national specificity. Although the French and Russian cuisines have distinctive features, four products are archetypically significant for both cultures: bread, butter, milk and honey. Their denominations in both languages are very widely represented in figurative expressions. The image of bread is the most significant one in the French and Russian cultures; figurative expressions with this component in both languages are based on the archetype of bread as the symbol of life, well-being and wealth. We believe that for assessing the potential of a figurative expression of a language it is necessary to combine the linguoculturological analysis with the analysis of discursive realization of a studied linguistic unit in different types of discourse. Thus the French figural expression “avoir du pain sur la planche” was analyzed both linguoculturologically and discursively in three meanings. The results have shown that this expression is widely used in different types of modern discourse only in one of its meanings. The results prove that discursive realization is the key element for studying figurative expressions and it should become the key component for complex investigation of the figurative layer of a language.

Keywords: figurative layer of a language, figurative expressions, phraseological fund of a language, food denominations, the French cuisine, the Russian cuisine, linguoculturological analysis, discursive realization analysis, the Russian language, the French langua

1383
3

FRENCH FIGURATIVE VOCABULARY REPRESENTING ARCHETYPICALLY ESSENTIAL FOODS (COMPARATIVE, LINGUOCULTURAL AND DISCOURSE STUDIES) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2018. Issue 4 (193). P. 128-132

The paper presents the comparative analysis of French, Russian and English figurative vocabulary representing archetypically essential foods – honey, milk and butter. Figurative vocabulary is a valuable source of data connected with national mentality; it reflects material and spiritual culture in the language. The investigation of figurative expressions containing different linguistic units which represent foods is relevant due to the fact that food, being an element of national culture, is connected in the greatest degree with peoples’ perception of their national characteristic features. Figurative expressions containing such linguistic units as ‘honey’, ‘milk’ and ‘bread’ have been analyzed as these elements are frequently used in French, Russian and English figurative expressions. Milk and honey are equally significant foods for the Russians and French people, consequently, figurative meanings represented by these linguistic units are similar in both cultures. Milk symbolizes health, youth; it is also a source of enjoyment and pleasure in the English and French cultures. The linguocultural analysis of French figurative expressions was supplemented by the examination of their realizations in different types of discourse and compared to equivalent expressions in the Russian and English languages. The most vivid examples are provided with contexts from different types of discourse. The complex analysis of French expressions containing the unit “beurre” has shown that one and the same expression can have not only different but also antonymic figurative meanings which have opposite connotations. Thus, the results have shown that the complex analysis should be carried out in three aspects: linguocultural, comparative and discourse ones.

Keywords: figurative expressions, figurative vocabulary, figurative meanings, foods, linguocultural analysis, discourse analysis, French, Russian, English

1335

2026 Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin

Development and support: Network Project Laboratory TSPU