Учебное пособие 1838

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

As we use IMaS as the unit of measurement the force between the authors, then determining the largest value of IMaS in each horizontal line, we ascertain the force of maximum vector link between the authors.

For instance, Arnold Bennet (line ‘Bnt’) being the initial mark, we find that her maximum IMaS 0.266 that indicates the maximum markeme vocabulary similarity of two authors is in column ‘Mghm’. Hence, Arnold Bennet points at Somerset Maugham. In such a way, we draw an oriented graph from Bennet to Maugham. Similar data are taken from each line.

Research results

If we take into account only the links of maximum force in each pair of authors, we could draw a graph, which depicts major vector links and their force between the authors of 20- 1. In doing so for each author we identify another author who is next to him by IMaS. Further study based on the analysis of those markemes that couple the authors (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Graph of preferred links between the authors of 20-1

Determining the links of maximum force makes possible analyzing the linking force of markemes in reference to Centers of Attraction (CA). A CA is a group of authors whose links

74

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

are mutually oriented. Hence, there distinguished two centres of attraction – CA-1 Conan Doyle-Christie and CA-2 Woolf – Galsworthy – among English writers of 20-1. This provides the possibility to identify markemes, which link each author with major figures of his center and determine the magnitude of the linking force for each markeme of the chronological interval.

The graph illustrates that Haggard, Orwell, Maugham have both centrifugal and centripetal links. We consider a link as a centrifugal one when it is oriented from a given author toward the author whose IMaS is the closest. Those links that are oriented towards the CA are called centripetal in reference to this center of attraction. Those authors who have such links form Intermediate Centers (IC). In the graph, all the ICs (Haggard, Orwell, Maugham) are linked with the CA directly, so they are called ICs of the first order (IC-1). In the periphery of the graph, there are authors who have no centripetal links – Farnol, Jerome K. Jerome, Bennet, Huxley, Wells, Chesterton. We call them terminal authors (the farthest authors from the IC).

Linking markemes analysis implies distinguishing core and peripheral markemes of the CA and establishing the power of its centripetal links.

In doing that we use the value of Total Weight of Markeme Link in all the pairs of authors (TotLWeight) and to determine the CA power we compute Integral Linking Weight (InLWeight) for markemes of major figures of CA. The formula for computing InLWeight is as follows:

InLWeight TotLWeight Qm ,

where TotLWeight – total weight of markeme links, Qm – the number of links the given

markeme provides. The value of TotLWeight equals numerically the value of total normalized InTeM of a markeme in all the links it serves. In the process of the analysis, we consider the principle of links and weights “inheritance”. This makes possible to identify markeme links between terminal authors and the CA. The “inheritance” of links takes place through the IC and lies in accounting the linking weight of those markemes, which are mutual for terminal authors and the authors united into CA. For instance, destruction is a linking markeme in the pair Far- nol-Haggard, but it is also a linking markeme in the pair Haggard-Conan Doyle. Therefore, we consider destruction as a markeme that passes through IC-1 Haggard and has two links. Hence, when entering IC-0 Conan Doyle linking weight of destruction totals its linking weight at Farnol’s (0,0248) and Haggard’s (0,0219): = 0.0248 + 0.0219 = 0.0467(the weight of the markeme coming from each of the authors is given in brackets). Accordingly, InLWeight of destruction equals 0.0467 × 2 = 0.09333 when it enters IC-0 Conan Doyle. TotLWeight and InLWeight of all markemes that pass through IC-1 should be calculated the similar way.

First let us determine core and peripheral markemes, which provide the link of maximum force in the pairs of authors, and then calculate the markeme power of the CA. Sixteen vector links of maximum force including 12 centrifugal and 4 mutually oriented links link all the writers. Eighty-two markemes provide these links and the total number of their use is 419. The average number of markemes per one link (27) quantifies the link Haggard-Conan Doyle. One markeme less (26) accounts for the link Orwell – Woolf and Wells – Orwell. The number of markemes above the average belongs to the following links: Woolf – Galsworthy (28), Jerome K. Jerome – Haggard (28), Conrad – Conan Doyle (30). A maximum number of markemes – 31 – establishes mutually oriented link Conan Doyle – Christie.

The minimum number of markemes (20) quantifies the link Kipling – Christie. It is followed by six links in order of increasing the number of markemes: Lawrence – Woolf (22), Chesterton – Orwell (23), Bennet – Maugham (24), Maugham – Galsworthy (25), Farnol – Haggard (25), Huxley – Maugham (25). Table 3 presents the full list of markemes ranked according to the number of links, which each markeme serves.

75

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Table 3. Markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve

Figure 4 illustrates markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve. Figure 4. Markeme distribution according to the number of links they serve

SUPERCILIOUSNESS

SELF-DETERMINATION

PROVIDENCE

PREOCCUPATION

MAGNIFICENCE

INCONVENIENCE

FORGETFULNESS

ENCOURAGEMENT

DISINTERESTEDNESS

DEVELOPMENT

CURIOSITY

CONDESCENSION

ACKNOWLEDG(E)MENT

SENTIMENTALITY

SELF-POSSESSION

MISREPRESENTATION

ATMOSPHERE

PERSONALITY

JUSTIFICATION

BEWILDERMENT

OBSERVATION

CONTEMPLATION

COMPREHENSION

APPRECIATION

IRRESPONSIBILITY

CONFIDENCE

POSSIBILITY

DISILLUSIONMENT

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

MISUNDERSTANDING

IMPRESSION

CONCENTRATION

INDIFFERENCE

ASTONISHMENT

CIVILI(S/Z)ATION

SIGNIFICANCE

INTELLIGENCE

DIFFICULT(Y/IES)

UNDERSTANDING

RESPONSIBILITY

CONSIDERATION

The markeme list includes 82 markemes taken from the consolidated markeme list consisting of each author markeme list. Considering their repetition in the markeme lists of different authors the consolidated markeme list totals 262 markemes. Our list includes only those markemes that are present in the markeme lists of at least two authors and together with other mutual markemes demonstrate maximum IMaS for that pair.

Considering the number of each markeme links, we could provide their preliminary rank-

ing.

76

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Average of the number of links being 5.1, six links could be established as a lower limit of core markemes number. This is about 2/3 of all established links. Thirty markemes serve all core links. Average of the number links being 10.3, 12 markemes that serve 11 and more links constitute the small core.

In studied links, there are 5 consistent markemes, which are present in all links. Markemes consideration, imagination, responsibility, satisfaction and understanding serve the maximum number of links 16 (of 16). According to the number of links they are followed by consciousness, difficult(y/ies), disappointment, intelligence – 15, opportunity, significance – 13, determination – 11, civili(s/z)ation – 10, experience – 9, astonishment, independence, indifference, respectability – 8, concentration, excitement, impression, indignation, misunderstanding, recollection, self-consciousness, self-preservation – 7, disillusionment, embarrassment, possibility, unconsciousness – 6. The rest 52 markemes are peripheral ones and form 1-5 links. Average of the number of links 2.13 allows classifying 18 markems that form 3-5 links as the small periphery markemes and 34 markemes that form 1-2 links as the large periphery markemes. Thus confidence, importance, irresponsibility, relationship – 5, appreciation, companionship, comprehension, consternation, contemplation, destruction, observation – 4, attention, bewilderment, impossibility, justification, knowledge, personality, superstition – 3 constitute the small periphery. In its turn atmosphere, extravagance, misrepresentation, reconstruction, self-possession, self-satisfaction, sentimentality, unpleasantness – 2, acknowledg(e)ment, admiration, condescension, conscience, curiosity, darkness, development, disadvantage, disinterestedness, dissatisfaction, encouragement, entertainment, forgetfulness, forgiveness, inconvenience, loveliness, magnificence, moonlight, preoccupation, pretentiousness, providence, reflection, self-determination, strength, superciliousness, vengeance – 1 constitute the large periphery.

InLWeight markeme ranking makes it possible to specify the body of the core and peripheral markemes. Average of InLWeight value divides the core and the periphery. A similar calculation of the average of InLWeight for the core and peripheral markemes on an individual basis enables distinguishing the small and the large core among the core markemes and the small and the large periphery among the peripheral markemes. Table 5 presents the data we use to visualize the core and peripheral markemes distribution based on InLWeight (Fig. 6).

Table 5. Data on the core and peripheral markemes distribution

77

Figure 6. Distribution of the core and peripheral markemes based on InLWeight

As the average of InLWeight is 1.103, indifference is a lower core limit. Such markemes of the core distinguished according to the number of maximum force links as concentration, disillusionment, embarrassment, excitement, impression, independence, indignation, possibility, recollection, self-preservation and unconsciousness became the small peripheral markemes. Nevertheless, the number of small core markemes decreased slightly. It includes 9 markemes: responsibility, understanding, consideration, disappointment, satisfaction, consciousness, imagination, intelligence, difficult(y/ies). Hence, the number of core markemes is 19 and the peripheral ones are 63.

To determine the markeme power of CA-1 and CA-2 we calculated centripetal links force of IC-0 and ICs-1 The sum of sentripetal links of Conan Doyle, Christie, Woolf and Galsworthy forms the markeme power of CA. Taking into account the principle of links ‘inheritance’ a centripetal link directed from IC-1 to IC-0 totals the sum of centripetal and centrifugal links in each IC-1. Thus, the total number of centripetal links is 16. Of these, five links belong to Conan Doyle and Woolf; Galsworthy has four links and Chriestie has two links. Hence, the markeme power of the centres of attraction, determined by the markemes InLWeight value, is 90.4.

Markeme analysis of all centripetal links between CA and ICs enables studying bilateral markeme links between major figures of CA, identifying linking markemes and determining markeme specificity of each centre. In doing so we analyze markemes in all centripetal links of IC-0 (Conan Doyle, Christie, Woolf, Galsworthy), IC-1(Haggard, Maugham, Orwell).

The centre of attraction unites writers who group near two major figures of CA and have no markeme links of maximum force between themselves. Mutually oriented links between

78

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

Conan Doyle and Christie on the one hand and Woolf and Galsworthy on the other hand suggest that they are intermediate centres in reference to each other (IC-0CDl, ЦП-0Chr, ЦП-0Wlf,

ЦП-0Gwth). That is why it is necessary to study and compare the markeme specificity of each IC-0.

Each IC mediates its own link and the links of the terminal authors with key figure of their. Implementing the principle of inheritance of markemes and their weights we consider the markemes that pass through IC and outgoes from it as linking markemes. We qualify all passing through and outgoing markemes as markemes of Haggard, Maugham and Orwell.

Part 2 of this paper deals with the analysis of linking markemes in each centre of attraction and their markeme specificity.

Conclusion

The study results in the following:

1.Markeme analysis prevents integrating all the authors of 20-1 into a single connected oriented graph.

2.In 20-1, there distinguished two graphs: ‘detective and adventurous’ with the centre of attraction ‘A. Conan Doyle – A. Christie’ and ‘social and psychological’ with the centre of attraction ‘V. Woolf – J. Galsworthy’.

3.Sixteen vector links of maximum force including 12 centrifugal and four mutually oriented links link all the writers.

4.A maximum number of markemes – 31 – establishes mutually oriented link Conan Doyle – Christie. The minimum number of markemes – 20 – quantifies the link Kipling – Christie.

5.Ranking of linking markemes according to the number of links distinguished markemes, which provide core and peripheral links. Thirty markemes serve all core links among which 12 markemes constitute the small core. The small core markemes serve 11 and more links. Fifty-three markemes serve peripheral links. The small periphery includes 18 markemes, which form 3-5 links. The large periphery includes 34 markemes, which serve 1-2 links.

6.Markemes consideration, imagination, responsibility, satisfaction, understanding, consciousness, difficult(y/ies), disappointment, intelligence, opportunity, significance, determination, civili(s/z)ation, experience, astonishment, independence, indifference, respectability, concentration, excitement, impression, indignation, misunderstanding, recollection, selfconsciousness, self-preservation, disillusionment, embarrassment, possibility, unconsciousness provide core links.

7.Nineteen markemes ranked according to InLWeight constitute the core and 63 markemes are peripheral one. Core markemes are responsibility, understanding, consideration, disappointment, satisfaction, consciousness, imagination, intelligence, difficult(y/ies), opportunity, significance, determination, civili(s/z)ation, self-consciousness, misunderstanding, - astonishment, experience, respectability, indifference.

8.The markeme power of the centres of attraction is 90.4.

References

[1]Khrolenko A. T. Osnovy lingvokul’turologii [Elektronnyj resurs]: uchebnoje posobije. - Rezhim dostupa: https://culture.wikireading.ru/77016 (vremja obrashchenija 18.02.2019).

[2]Kretov А.А. Metod formal'nogo vydeleniya tematicheski nejtral'noj leksiki (na primere staroslavyanskikh tekstov) // Vestn. Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.

Seriya: Sistemnyj analiz i informatsionnye tekhnologii. 2007. № 1. S. 81-90.

[3]Аrtemova O.G., Komarova E.P., Kretov А.А. Evolyutsiya markemnoj leksiki na osnove issledovaniya markem v khronologicheskikh srezakh // Yazyk i kul'tura. 2018. № 42. S. 19-38.

79

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

[4]Kretov A.A. Dinamika markem v russkoj literature XVIII – nachala XX vekov kak otrazhenije sociokul’turnyh porcessov // Politicheskaja lingvistika. 2010. № 3 (33). S. 141-150.

[5]Artemova O.G., Kretov A.A. Issledovanije sv’azujushchih markem v britanskoj proze vtoroj poloviny XVII veka // Mir lingvistiki i kommunikacii: elektronnyj zhurnal. 2018. № 53, S. 7088.

[6]Аrtemova O.G., Komarova E.P., Kretov А.А. Sv’azujushchije markemy v britanskoj proze vtoroj poloviny XIX veka // Jazyk i kul’tura. 2018. №. 43, S. 6-32.

[7]Kretov A.A. Index prijatija mira: novaja informacija o russkih pisatel’ah XVIII-XX vv. // Universalii russkoj literatury: sbornik nauchnyh trudov. Voronezh. 2010. Vyp. 4, S. 114125.

[8]Yefimova T.V., Artemova O.G. Al’ternativnyj sposob vizualizacii soderzhanija teksta

// Vestnik Voronezhskogo gos. un-ta, Ser. Lingvistika i mezhkulturnaja kommunikacija. 2018. № 4. – S. 103-114.

[9]Artemova O.G. Formalizacija i vizualizacija markemnyh otnoshenij v anglijskoj hudozhestvennoj proze pervoj poloviny XX veka // Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnometodicheskoj konferencii “Informatika: problem, metodologija, tehnologii”, Voronezh. 2019.

S. 1590-1596.

[10]Kretov A.A. Pon’atije markemy: metodika vyjavlenija i praktika ispol’zovanija //

Universalii russkoj literatury. Voronezh. 2010. S. 138-153.

[11]Yefimova M.A., Voronina I.Ye., Kretov A.A. Vydelenije tematicheski markirovannoj leksiki v anglojazychnyh tekstah // Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-metodicheskoj konferencii “Informatika: problem, metodologija, tehnologii”, Voronezh. 2013. S. 461-464.

[12]Titov V.T. Chastnaja kvantitativnaja leksikologija romanskih jazykov: Monografija. Voronezh. 2004. S. 15.

[13]Faustov A.A., Kretov A.A. Pon’atije markemy i predvaritel’nyje itogi markemnogo analiza russkoj literatury // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gos. un-ta, Ser. Lingvistika i mezhkulturnaja kommunikacija. 2017. № 4, pp. 16-31.

Analyzed sources

[1*] Proekt Gutenberg [El’ektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: http://www.gutenberg.org/ (vremja obrashchenija – 15.02.2019).

80

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

UDC 811.161.1

GEOGRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD IN A LEXICAL EQUIVALENT AS A REFLECTION OF THE CHARACTERS’ IMAGES EMBODIMENT IN LITERARY WORKS

(BY THE EXAMPLE OF THE D. RUBINA’S NOVEL “ZHELTUKHIN”)

M.B. Rastorgueva, O.V. Starkova

___________________________________________________________________________

Voronezh State Technical University

Ph. D (Linguistics), Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages and Translation Technology

Marina B. Rastorgueva e-mail: rast.mari@mail.ru

Lyceum № 1, Orel

Teacher of English language Olga V. Starkova

e-mail: olgstark@mail.ru

____________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. This paper considers the reflection of the geographical picture of the world, presented as a thematically significant background in the characters’ life path by the example of the analysis of toponyms in D. Rubina’s novel “Zheltukhin” vocabulary. The groups of toponyms uniting lexical units on the basis of thematic connection with the characters’ images of the novel “Zheltukhin” who at different times tried to start relationship were analyzed: the group of toponyms “Leon” / the group of toponyms “Aya”, the group of toponyms “Nikolai Kablukov (Zverolov)” / the group of toponyms “Esther Etinger (Young Lady, Eska)”.

Results. As a result of the analysis of the toponymic lexical units, we noted that the novel “Zheltukhin” vocabulary is divided according to the basic toponyms classification principle into the following subgroups: oikonyms, among which astionyms and comonyms stand out; oronyms; hydronyms, which, in turn, are divided into limonyms, oceanonyms, pelagonyms and potamonyms; hodonyms; urbonyms; dromonyms; horonyms. This confirmed the theory about the connection of such a classification with the general political and general cultural systems of the universe of those historical periods where the author placed her characters, which largely shaped their artistic images.

Conclusion. Based on the study, the following conclusions can be drawn: - toponyms associated with 4 thematic groups of characters’ images are presented in the D. Rubina’s novel "Zheltukhin" with 138 lexical units; subgroups within each of the thematic groups were identified during the analysis by the principle of the main toponyms classification; - the most extensive thematic group is “Esther Etinger (Young Lady, Eska)” (47 lexical units), the least one - “Nikolai Kablukov (Zverolov)” (17 lexical units); - the subgroups of oikonyms, hydronyms, hodonyms, horonyms, and urbanonyms in all thematic tomonyms groups have been identified; - subgroups of oronyms have been found only in the thematic groups “Leon”, “Aya”, “Nikolai Kablukov (Zverolov)”, dromonyms have been identified only in the thematic group “Nikolai Kablukov (Zverolov)”. In our opinion this classification of toponyms has a direct connection with the formation and embodiment of the main characters’ images of the literary work. The article is a continuation of the study of the lexical content of the D. Rubina’s trilogy “Russian Canary”.

Key words: geographical picture of the world, lexical component, picture of the world of a native speaker, toponyms, toponymy, thematic groups, oikonyms, oronyms, hydronyms, hodonyms, urbonyms, dromonyms, horonyms.

For citation: Rastorgueva M.B., Starkova O.V. Geographic picture of the world in a lexical equivalent as a reflection of the characters’ images embodiment in literary works (by the example of the D. Rubina’s novel “Zheltukhin”) / M.B. Rastorgueva, O.V. Starkova // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic

Researches”. – 2019. - № 3 (26). – P. 81-91.

Introduction

It is known that in many literary works geographical picture of the world is a bright

__________________________________

© Rastorgueva M.B., Starkova O.V., 2019

81

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

background for characters’ images formation, supplementing and filling them with special categories, which is reflected in the thematic interpretation and genre originality used by the authors - representatives of modern Russian prose. Such authors include Dina Ilyinichna Rubina, who, on the one hand, is an outstanding representative of modern writers, on the other hand, many of her works organically combine such completely antonymic concepts as “past - present”. The thread of the narrative moves through the cities and villages already gone into the annals of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire history, the characters move to all the continents, traveling the world, living large and small segments of their lives in completely different environment and circumstances. This peculiarity certainly affects the characters, developing their personalities, habits, self-perception in different circumstances. Also, this aspect influences on the formation of a native speaker’s picture of the world. Undoubtedly, this context of works is inextricably linked with such a philological phenomenon as toponymy.

“Toponymy evolves in close collaboration with geography, history, ethnography ... and is an important source for studying the language history (the history of lexicology, dialectology, etymology and others), as some toponyms (especially hydronyms) steadily preserve archaisms and dialectisms, often go back to the languages - substrates of peoples who lived in certain territory. Toponymy helps to restore the features of the peoples’ historical past, to determine the boundaries of their settlement, to outline the areas of the former distribution of languages, the geography of cultural and economic centers, trade routes, etc.” [1].

A lot of lexicographers’ works are devoted to the study of toponyms as a lexical component. For instance, similar themes have been found in the works of Bagomedov M.R. [2], Davlekanova L.N. [3], Kartavenko V.S. [4], Legenkina V. I. [5], Minushova O.N. [6], Hisametdinova R.F. [7], Chernoraeva T.N. [8], Elvia Wafa Mohammed Khidir [9] and others.

It is well-known that toponyms are defined as proper names associated with various geographical concepts. They are studied in such a section of linguistics as toponymy - “a section of onomastics that studies geographical names (toponyms), their functioning, meaning and origin, structure, distribution area, development and change in time” [1]. “The totality of place names in any territory is its toponymy” [10].

Thus, toponyms traditionally include a thematically diverse proper names group of geographical orientation, within which the following gradation exists:

-oikonyms (names of inhabited places),

-oronyms (names of mountains),

-hydronyms (names of rivers and lakes),

-hodonims (names of streets),

-urbonyms (names of towns and cities),

-agoronims (name of squares),

-dromonyms (names of lines of communication),

-horonyms (names of administrative areas, countries) [11].

The conclusions presented in this paper are part of a general study of the modern Russian prose vocabulary using the D.I. Rubina’s works as an example. The vocabulary of a certain thematic orientation (toponyms) of the D. Rubina’s novel “Zheltukhin”, which is a part of the trilogy “Russian Canary”, has been analyzed.

It should be noted that nowadays linguists are interested in different aspects of D.I. Rubina’s literary work. For instance, the study of the lexical component has been found in the works of Listrova Y.T., Rastorgueva M.B., Elvia Wafa Mohammed Khidir, Kalashnikova M.A., Gabdreeva N.V., Tuaimy Muttair Hussein and others. [12, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20].

M.A. Kalashnikova’s dissertation "Borrowings and New Lexical-semantic Formations in the D. Rubina’s Works" was successfully defended in 2018 [18].

Methodology of the research

In this paper the object is the study of the lexical originality of the work of modern prose. The subject is the lexical layer of toponyms that have a direct connection with the main charac-

82

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (26), 2019 ISSN 2587-8093

ter’s life stories. The scientific novelty of the material presented in the article is expressed as one of the components of the general study of the lexical layer of the of D. Rubina’s trilogy “Russian Canary” - the identification of various thematic and general cultural connections between manifestations of the toponymy phenomena in the novel “Zheltukhin” vocabulary [1 *] with the characters’ images.

As a material for analysis one of the novels of the D.I. Rubina’s trilogy “Russian Canary” “Zheltukhin” have been chosen.

When writing the paper, the methods of continuous sampling, comparative analysis, statistical method, observation and description methods were used for the material analysis.

The relevance of the study is expressed in the systematic replenishment of the series of works belonging to the modern Russian prose, created at the turn of the century, and their lexical content in terms of a comprehensive review of the material selected by continuous sampling.

The main purpose of this paper is to consider the toponyms presented in the novel

“Zheltukhin” by D. Rubina [1 *] in terms of their connection with the characters in the intersecting realities of everyday life.

This purpose involves solving a number of tasks, among which:

- analysis of the lexical layer of the D. Rubina’s novel “Zheltukhin”, represented by toponyms;

-division of the novel "Zheltukhin" toponyms into thematic groups in accordance with the characters’ images and into classification subgroups within thematic groups;

-distribution of the selected lexical material and the identification of statistics on filling the mentioned groups and subgroups of toponyms in D. Rubina’s novel “Zheltukhin” based on the previous problem solution.

Results of the research

One of the features of the trilogy “Russian Canary” by D. Rubina is that the narrative covers huge strata in terms of time and geographic scope. The time period of the trilogy originates in the XIX century, smoothly passes through the XX century, moving the next generation of characters into the XXI century. The geographical map of the characters’ biographies is so highly filled that it includes a wide variety of equivalents - from continents to small local little known geographical attractions. The characters of the novel, whose generations succeed each other with the natural passage of time, fall into an amazing spiral of life, on each turn of which fate first brings them together, then brings them apart. But at the same time, representatives of two family branches of Etingers and Kablukovs repeatedly try to start relationship at different times.

The toponyms that have been selected by the continuous sampling method when analyzing the novel “Zheltukhin” lexical composition are diverse in subject.

So, we have identified the following groups of toponyms, combining lexical units on the principle of thematic connection with the characters who at different times tried to start relationship:

-group of toponyms “Leon” / group of toponyms “Aya”;

-group of toponyms "Nikolay Kablukov (Zverolov)" / group of toponyms "Esther Etinger (Young lady, Eska)."

Within these thematic groups, we identified the following subgroups according to the principle of the main classification of toponyms [1]:

-oikonyms (names of settlements), among them astionyms (names of cities) and comonyms (names of rural settlements) stand out;

-oronyms (names of mountains, mountain ranges, peaks);

-hydronyms (names of the planet’s water arteries), which, in turn, are divided into limnonyms (names of lakes), oceanonyms (names of oceans), pelagonyms (names of seas) and potamonyms (names of rivers);

83