Linguocultural Dictionary Of Crimea: Theory And Practice

Abstract

The article is devoted to the description of the linguocultural dictionary of the Republic of Crimea. The paper analyzes the historical, political, socio-cultural prerequisites for the formation of a unique language socio-cultural context in the region, which allows us to speak about the relevance and scientific need for the above dictionary compilation. The objective of this article is to describe the general concept of a regional linguocultural dictionary, consider the principle of nominative units’ selection and creating a model for a dictionary entry presentation. The paper analyzes general principles of linguocultural dictionaries development, considers the patterns of realities selection and description (differential, precedent and the principle of social and regional marking), representing the linguocultural dictionary of Crimea; the principles of specificity and thematic affiliation for the vocabulary formation and ways of presenting cultural information in the "Crimea" dictionary as a regional linguocultural glossary of a special type are considered in detail. All nominative units, which are the object of description, include the regional component of meaning and belong to one of the extended thematic groups (biology, geography, ethnography and socio-politics). Thus, we have identified three significant thematic blocks, which are extended and combined into lexical-semantic groups of regionally marked nominative units; the content and structure of each group is presented in the work. The article presents the concept of macro and microstructure of the proposed dictionary. For clarity, the author demonstrates a description model using the example of two dictionary entries, which are compiled in accordance with the concept presented.

Keywords: Crimea, linguocultural dictionary, Russian

Introduction

The relevance of the model development and the linguocultural dictionary of Crimea publication appeared in connection with the Russia’s annexation of the peninsula in March 2014. Every year the need for such a dictionary is growing, as the peninsula is increasingly integrating into Russian history, infrastructure and culture.

The peculiarity of the linguocultural dictionary of the Crimea compilation, the vocabulary formation in particular, is the uniqueness of the language situation that has developed on the peninsula. The dictionary will help to consider the Crimean regional culture in the context of the all-Russian one.

Changes in all spheres of Crimeans’ life in the spring of 2014 caused changes in the linguistic world view. These transformations actualize the need to fix and preserve the unique Crimean language material. Among the researchers of the Crimean language and linguocultural dynamics we especially note the works of Rudyakov (2016), Dorofeev (2017), Bogdanovich (2003), Zabashta (2019), who are also studying the problem of identifying and fixing regionally and culturally specific realities with the subsequent possibility of creating a regional linguocultural dictionary within the framework of the geo-Russian studies concept, which implies the consideration of the Russian language functioning in Crimea as the Crimean regional version of the Russian standard language (Zabashta, 2018).

Our research was carried out in the context of anthropocentric linguistics approach based on the principles of linguistic functionalism, and is aimed at the analysis of nominative units and their lexicography. In our opinion, a dictionary that captures the originality of the language nominative sphere is one of the best ways to reflect various aspects of culture and linguistic world view of a given society or its part.

After analyzing the typology of existing dictionaries, we came to the conclusion that it is necessary to focus on linguocultural lexicography, but one cannot fail to note the typological and substantive similarity between linguocultural and language and country studies dictionaries. Let us dwell in more detail on the analysis of these two concepts.

According to Maslova (2001), “Words and expressions that serve as a subject of description in language and country studies should be the focus of research in linguocultural studies” (p. 36). Vorobiev (2008) notes that linguoculture acts as a kind of successor to language and country studies, but focuses on a new system of cultural values put forward by a new way of thinking, modern life of a community, as well as on a complete, objective, and not "reduced" interpretation of facts, phenomena and information about various areas of a country cultural life. Kozyrev and Chernyak (2000) emphasize the importance of encyclopedic information in linguocultural dictionaries and the need to identify the semantic potential of words that accumulate the cultural memory of the nation (p. 290).

We agree with Uzhova (2013) and other linguists who believe that a dictionary type is a way to fix language material; therefore, according to the way of describing culturally significant information we can distinguish linguocultural, language and country studies, explanatory, etymological and other dictionaries. The ambiguity of the classification criteria leads to blurring of clear boundaries between dictionary genres.

The result of forty years scientific research on the relationship between language and culture was the publication of the monograph by Vereshchagin and Kostomarov “Language and Culture in 2005. Three linguistic and cultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapientems ”, which offers linguistic tools to objectify national culture through language and capture the specifics of language semantics in terms of the genesis and culture functioning (Vereshchagin & Kostomarov, 2005).

The analysis showed that despite the initial stage of the formation of linguocultural lexicography, the creation of such dictionaries is an urgent direction of lexicography (Agapova & Kartofeleva, 2014; Ansimova, 2018; Bankova, 2019; Brileva et al., 2004; Chulkina, 2015; Li, 2020; Li et al., 2019). Thus, in modern Russian lexicography, language and country studies dictionaries occupy a separate niche, which is confirmed by various attempts to classify existing dictionaries. Many linguists, including us, agree that “The main task of linguocultural lexicography as a field of linguistic and didactic activity is the study of the national-cultural component of the meaning of words semantics that form the basis of the national mentality. Lexicographic descriptions of cultural phenomena is a synthesis of the author's perception of the world and national self-awareness, which makes it possible to reflect the national-specific universals of the linguistic world view” (Kobiakova & Suntsova, 2017, p. 143).

Linguocultural lexicography was formed as a separate discipline due to the isolation of linguoculture into independent study, actively researching the originality of the Russian language nominative sphere in the mainstream of cultural linguistics and the formation of specific principles of linguocultural lexicography.

Problem Statement

Despite political and ideological views, the culture of Crimea is bound to be perceived as "alien" for the mainland Russia inhabitants for some time ahead, since for a long period the Crimean linguistic world view had been formed under the influence of another non-Russian tradition, which naturally contributed to it. This implies the need to create a linguocultural dictionary of Crimea to include the Crimean linguoculture in the Russian one. Consequently, the main task of interpreting realities is not to determine their lexical meaning, but to determine their place in the regional linguoculture, which following Krasnykh (2012), is understood through the language” (p.72).

The description of the concept of the linguocultural dictionary of Crimea includes the study of such problems as specificity and varieties of linguocultural dictionaries, their typological features, the language and cultural specificity of the region, various aspects of Crimean studies, etc.

Traditionally in linguistics, language phenomena specific to a particular region are referred to as regional, consequently to dialectal. However, in this case, speaking of regional vocabulary we mean not dialectal or regional, but culturally marked vocabulary, which is actively used in colloquial speech and occupies a special place in the Crimean linguistic world view.

In Crimea today, a unique socio-cultural situation has been created, the study of which is the primary goal of the Crimean specialists in Russian philology. In this regard, it becomes necessary to develop a concept of a linguocultural dictionary dedicated to Crimea (draft title - Crimea: regional linguocultural dictionary).

Lexicography is the most complex and most visual way to fix the linguocultural features of regional units. Let us consider in more detail the nominative units with a regional component of meaning (the seme 'Crimea').

Research Questions

Some of the actual nominative units for the Crimeans were not borrowed from the mainland Russian language, but were created in the process of state building in Crimea; some of the terms and concepts formally remained unchanged, but they qualitatively transformed the conceptual side, semantic content (for example, minister, school director, Council of Ministers, state capital, president, mainland, anthem, etc.). Extra-linguistic data, which is not fixed in the nominative meaning of the word, play an important role in the perception of nominative units. Therefore, in the world view the image is not fixed for an abstract president, but for a concrete personality, with all its features and associated connections (now V. Putin, not V. Yanukovych). Let us compare them: both units denote top state governmental positions; both presidents are heads of state who are elected by national secret ballot; both are the guarantors of the Constitution, rights and freedoms of citizens and the Supreme Commanders-in-Chief of the State Armed Forces; both have state symbols of power, etc. However, the “election period” is different (for the President of the Russian Federation it equals 6 years, for the President of Ukraine - 5 years).

We now consider these features on the example of academic workers’ positions. For instance, the position of the Minister of Education acquires the meaning of 'head of the Ministry of Education', however, due to a different administrative-territorial division the Minister of Education in Russia possesses greater powers in comparison with Ukraine. Thus, the Minister of Education in the Ukrainian Crimea was fully subordinate to the Minister of Education of Ukraine, that is, the Ministry was an executive body that fulfilled the legislative norms of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and supervised the work of subordinate institutions. The Minister of Education of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, being in the system of the all-Russian education system, has independence and autonomy.

The scope of the school concept has also changed. Today in Crimea schools are called educational institutions (educational organizations), which are licensed, carry out activities in compliance with the curriculum, are of different types (municipal, federal) and provide various educational services. All these new components of meaning are just becoming known to the Crimeans and are replacing Ukrainian terminology.

The problem of creating a regional linguocultural dictionary is not only in choosing vocabulary and its description, but also in capturing the semantic differences in word meanings. Sometimes such semantic differences are subtle and can only be distinguished in the context. Of particular linguistic interest are nominative units, the scope of concepts of which is the same for both the Crimeans and for the residents of mainland Russia.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this article is to describe the general concept of a regional linguocultural dictionary, consider the principles of selecting nominative units and create a model for presenting a dictionary entry.

Research Methods

According to the results of the 2014 population census, conducted on the territory of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the largest ethnic groups of modern Crimea are Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars; 175 nationalities in total were recorded. The absolute majority of the population of the peninsula named Russian their native language (Federal State Statistics Service, 2021). The Russian language functioning in Crimea reflects the world view, keeps the history of social, economic and political changes. For 22 years (from 1992 to 2014) Crimea was a part of Ukraine, which means that different lexis reflected the realities and values of the whole population. Thus, in the Russian language of Crimea, traces of active interaction with the Ukrainian language are still preserved. The Ukrainian language on the peninsula today, despite giving it the status of a state language (along with Russian and Crimean Tatar), has been in the periphery in the main communicative spheres, which makes it possible for the Russian language to significantly reduce the number of borrowings, interferences and enrich vocabulary with modern Russian realities. Today, the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar languages are mainly used in everyday life.

The central problem of our proposed dictionary model is the identification of realities with a regional component of meaning and their description; for this purpose we used a set of methods and techniques that allow us to achieve the set goal. The descriptive method included analysis, comparison and classification of empirical data. The method of continuous sampling was used to collect nominative units with a regional component of meanings (realities) from periodicals, the Internet, fiction, and verbal communication. The methods of semantic interpretation, component and contextual analysis were aimed at identifying the regional component of meaning, non-lexicographed semantic shades. The distributive analysis method was used to study units in contexts. The lexicographic method was aimed at studying units through lexicography.

The material for the study was the author's records, which include more than 700 nominative units of the modern Russian language functioning on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol; it was compiled on the basis of reference sources analysis and experimental methods.

Among the sources were various toponymic, regional encyclopedic, linguocultural dictionaries of Crimea; literary prose and poetic texts about Crimea or written in Crimea, memoir literature, texts of regional folklore (fairy tales and legends of the peoples of Crimea); texts of Russian and regional media; recordings of written spoken language (forums, social networks, chats).

The central issue of any dictionary is the problem of formation, selection and presentation of vocabulary, which we understand as a list of nominative units located in a certain system that are subject to lexicographic interpretation.

For us, among other things, the main principles have become the differential (unlike in linguistic and country study dictionaries we include only culturally significant lexemes in the vocabulary), precedent principle (importance, functionality, recognizability, frequency / prevalence of reality in the Crimean language community). Hence, the principle of material selection in this dictionary can be designated as the principle of social and regional marking.

From this prospective, the selection of realities for our dictionary is based not on the traditional approach to compiling cultural educational dictionaries, which compare the cultures of two countries, but on the study of one language within the framework of one culture and one country. We observed similar features in the language and country studies dictionary "Vladivostok in names from" A "to" Z " (Rubleva, 2005) or "Tula: facts, events, people ... " (Goncharova, 2011), however, these dictionaries include only individual cities, not a region as in our case. In addition, these cities do not have such a vibrant history of transition from the one state (Ukraine) to another (Russia), which, of course, was reflected in the language of the region.

We analyzed the Russian language functioning on the peninsula in order to identify nominative units with a regional component of meaning. In this case, the regional component meant the implicitly or explicitly expressed seme "Crimea".

The specificity of the linguocultural dictionary is expressed in a combination of linguistic, cultural and encyclopedic dictionary features, which is directly reflected in its macro- and microstructure.

Additionally, the development of a regional linguocultural dictionary model corresponds to the general and specific lexicographic principles:

• The principle of standardization in the material selection and presentation.
• The principle of continuity (based on the experience of Russian linguists).
• Subjective principle (author's attitude, purpose, objectives, dictionary concept).
• The pragmatic principle (focus on the reader, dictionary consumer).
• The thematic principle (explains the presence of language units in the vocabulary that reflect the main areas of society: geography, history, culture, literature, politics, economics, etc.)

In accordance with the developed concept and with reference to the above principles, the vocabulary of the proposed dictionary model includes the following thematic groups:

• anthroponyms (politicians, philanthropist, scientists, writers, architects, etc.): S.V. Aksyonov, Yu.A., Meshkov, V.I. Vernadsky, N.P. Krasnov, D. Sevastopolskaya, etc.
• toponyms (names of places): Kerch, Koktebel, Crimea, Miskhor, Sevastopol, Fiolent, Yalta;
• names of architectural landmarks: Bakhchisarai Palace, Genoese Fortress, Kenassa, Swallow's Nest, etc .;
• names of historical events: Crimean War, Defense of Sevastopol, Crimean Spring, famine in Crimea, Crimean Khanate, etc.;
• titles of art works: "Sevastopol Stories" "Lady with a Dog", "Bakhchisarai Fountain", "Sevastopol Harvest", etc.;
• plants: cypress, Crimean rose, Crimean onion, lavender, etc.;
• names of dishes: karaimskiy pie, pakhlava, yantykh etc.;
• names of holidays, memorable dates: the Day of the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the Memorial Day of the Crimea victims’ deportation, Easter, etc.;
• terms and terminological combinations from the socio-political field, economics: blackout, Crimean crisis, referendum;
• regionalisms: Kubik, Paita, Pass, Rosette, Topic, etc.;
• brands: Teas of Crimea, Kingdom of Aromas, Crimean Milkman, Skvortsovo, Krymskaya water, etc.
• documents’ names: The treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the accession of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the formation of new constituent Entity within the Russian Federation; the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, etc.

The classification principles of the realities presented in the language formed the basis for the division of nominative units with a regional component of meaning. Based on the analysis of works on this topic, we have combined the presented 12 thematic groups, reflecting the regional authenticity of the Russian language of the Crimean peninsula into 3 large blocks (Lanovaya, 2017, 2020). Thus, in the first block we included geographical nominative units characterizing the biological and geographical diversity of the region:

• names of plants, animals, birds, fish, insects that are not found in other areas (endemics) and those that are of cultural importance for the region (including mythological creatures): griffin, crocus, corn, cedar, cypress, juniper, lavender, Yalta onion, etc.;
• all types of toponyms (including the names of architectural objects): Ai Petri, Crimean Bridge, Swallow's Nest, Wuchang Su, Yasnaya Polyana, etc.;
• names of physical geography objects and natural phenomena: lapidary, canyon, pass, crossing, plateau, yayla, etc .

In the second block we have combined all ethnographic realities that characterize the culture and life of the Crimean people and / or a separate social group:

• gastronomic units (food, drinks, etc.): ayran, gorilka, kubete, koumiss, lavash, paklava, samsa, khachapuri, etc.;
• clothes (shoes, hats, etc.): vishivanka, hijab, etc.
• household items (furniture, dishes, etc.): glechik, jazve ‘Turk’, lyagan ‘large flat plate for two dishes’, towel, tandoor, ottoman ‘a board mainly made of wood for rolling dough’, etc.
• names of transport, means of transportation: ferry, topic, skiff, etc.
• names of ethnic groups: Karaites, Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, Crimeans.

In the third block we included the socio-political units represented in our records: administrative-territorial structure (names of organizations, governing bodies, names of patriotic and social movements, parties, etc.): Muftiate, State Council of the Republic of Crimea, Council of Ministers of the Republic of Crimea, etc.

• all of anthroponyms (those employed in science, culture and art, public figures, holders / representatives of authorities): I.K. Aivazovsky, V.I. Vernadsky, M.A. Voloshin, St. Luka, S. N. Sergeev- Tsenskiy and others;
• names of historical events, holidays, festivals, educational institutions: “Genoese helmet”, Kazantip, Crimean spring, “Tavrida - ART” festival, etc.

The number of thematic groups may change as you work on the dictionary.

The model of the proposed dictionary has the following macrostructure: 1. Content. 2. Introduction. 3. Notations. 4. The alphabet. 5. The dictionary corpus, arranged in strict alphabetical order. 6. Index of all objects names, facts, phenomena, personalities mentioned in the dictionary, connected with the Crimean history and culture (list of all headings with indication of other heading contained in the dictionary entry). 7. List of sources used (list of cultural, encyclopedic, regional and linguistic dictionaries and reference books).

The microstructure of the dictionary, that is, the organization of a dictionary entry in a generalized form can be represented as follows: 1. Vokabula (a unit in the initial form and with a highlighted stress). 2. Etymological reference (in borrowed units). 3. Synonyms or synonymous row of the heading unit. 4. Dictionary labels. 5. Definition (lexical meaning). 6. Text illustration. 7. Graphic illustration.

A clear differentiation between cultural and linguocultural dictionaries is difficult, since most often the same realities of the real world become the subject of their description. With the formal coincidence of the vocabulary material in these lexicographic publications, some differential features can be distinguished. In addition, as we noted above, it is often difficult to differentiate between linguocultural and language and country studies dictionaries, therefore, we emphasize their similarity in terms of our dictionary compilation.

1. Genre features of a dictionary entry. Texts on cultural studies and regional studies are of a reference, often encyclopedic nature. Therefore, they contain elements of an official business and scientific style, that is, neutral, without the means of artistic expression, etc. Texts on cultural linguistics and regional studies belong to journalistic, artistic and other mixed styles of speech typical for literary works, journalism, or verbal genres.

2. The language of material presentation. Due to less attachment to the language of the country under study, the material on cultural studies and regional studies can be fully presented in the native language of trainees. Linguocultural and language and country studies texts cannot be separated from the studied language, since the language itself in this case is the source of the necessary information about the country of the target language, and its culture.

3. Cultural and cross-cultural material reflects all information about the subject related to the country, while linguocultural and language and country studies records - only important for the culture data, extra-linguistic, background information. For example, if the unit of our description is a toponym, then we are not interested in the exact location of this object on the map, not in the interpretation of the etymological name, but most importantly - its meaning, the historical and cultural significance of a geographical place in the cultural, historical and spiritual life of a community.

Findings

As a conclusion, we will give examples of the dictionary entries in compliance with the developed and described concept.

Aivazovsky Ivan Konstantinovich (Figure 1) (1817–1900; was born and died in Feodosia)

• the most famous Crimean artist, world famous Russian marine painter, battle painter, collector and traveler. The famous philanthropist of the Crimea, who contributed to the improvement of Feodosia (libraries, schools, port, water supply, fountains, concert hall). Painter of the General Naval Staff, academician and honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Arts, honorary member of the Academy of Arts in Amsterdam, Rome, Paris, Florence and Stuttgart.

See Full Size >

Aivazovsky can be rightfully called the first promoter of the beauties of the Crimean nature. From his paintings you can get a complete picture of Crimea coastal strip nature - from Kerch to Yevpatoria. Most of the paintings are dedicated to Feodosia ("Old Feodosia", "Sunrise in Feodosia", "Arrival of Catherine II in Feodosia", etc.).

Aivazovsky early felt his appeal and love for the sea, and the main thing in his art was the image of the Black Sea and its Crimean shores. Despite the fact that the artist painted both the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, it is the Black Sea that is central to his work. The synthetic image of the Black Sea in the artist’s mind is reflected in the painting "The Black Sea".

Aivazovsky also loved to paint Yalta, Alushta, Cape Ayu-Dag, Ai-Petri. Against the background of the southern coastal landscape, the figure of Alexander Pushkin appears repeatedly (for example, "Alexander Pushkin accompanying M. Raevskaya on the seashore", "Alexander Pushkin at the top of Ai-Petri", etc.).

The Sevastopol theme occupies a special place in the work of Aivazovsky. Aivazovsky was closely acquainted with the heroes of the Crimean War, admirals P. S. Nakhimov, M. P. Lazarev, V. A. Kornilov (see Tomb of admirals). He painted many pictures dedicated to the defense of Sevastopol (for example, "Siege of Sevastopol", "Transition of Russian troops to the north side", "Capture of Sevastopol"). The Black Sea Fleet considered Aivazovsky a chronicler of his victories.

Thanks to Aivazovsky’s work, the Crimean nature became the painting theme of the Russian artists M. A. Voloshin, A. M. Vasnetsov, V. V. Vereshchagin, K. A. Korovin, F. A. Vasiliev.

Aivazovsky is one of the founders of the Cimmerian school of painting. Two generations of painters were raised in his art studio: AI Kuindzhi, LF Lagorio, AI Fessler; K.F.Bogaevsky, M.P. Latri. For many of them Crimea became the main artistic theme.

In 1880 Aivazovsky added a large hall to his house intended for demonstrating paintings to the Feodosians. Currently, it houses an art gallery which bears the name of the artist.

Aivazovsky is a symbol of Crimea. A number of settlements, sanatoriums, streets, parks, buildings, contests, etc. on the peninsula are named after him. In memory of Aivazovsky's stay in Alupka, one large rock by the sea, not far from the Vorontsov Palace, is called Aivazovsky's Rock.

Blackout (Figure 2)

• the accident on November 20, 2015 in the power system of Ukraine, as a result of which Crimea was completely de-energized. The emergency regime was introduced on the peninsula and phased blackouts were executed.

See Full Size >

One of the reasons for the blackout is the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation in 2014.

Soon the construction of the energy bridge to the Crimea was carried out (cable-overhead power lines and substations built to connect the peninsula's energy system to the unified energy system of Russia).

Blackout has become a symbol of the severing of all ties between Crimea and Ukraine. Its consequence was the complete energy independence of the Crimea.

Blackout has left a mark on the Crimean culture. In 2016 a monument to the power block was erected in Yalta: an installation of two light bulbs made of rods with LEDs. The monument immediately became a landmark of the region. Additionally, a new black Crimean cheese naturally dyed with activated carbon was named "blackout".

Poems by Crimean authors appeared, reflecting the situation of poor electricity supply in Crimea, as well as thematic jokes. For example, I will marry a rich man with a generator, or the expression children of blackout - children born 9 months after the accident.

Conclusion

Linguistics of the 19th century arrives at understanding that territorial, social, spatial originality of the language can be considered from the perspective of the linguistic system development, and linguistic phenomena - from the standpoint of the reflection of their linguocultural characteristics. This insight into the problem determines the need to study the nominative units functioning, taking into account their linguocultural and language and regional specificity.

The study of the nominative sphere in the regional studies aspect leads to the understanding regional linguistics as a component of language and country studies, which, along with linguocultural studies, is a way of studying linguoculture in general.

The proposed concept of the dictionary assumes filling the vocabulary with linguistic, cultural and regionally marked lexis that has a cultural function and describes such areas of Crimean life as literature, politics, geography, history, culture, economics and others. These spheres of public life cover such thematic groups of linguocultural vocabulary as: regional toponyms (names of landmarks); regional anthroponyms (politicians, public figures, philanthropists, scientists, writers, architects, etc.); names of events and significant periods of national history; names of regional works of art that have become national (for example, Crimean texts); realities that name the facts of the ethnographic culture of Crimea; names of regional holidays; names of influential, well-known public, religious movements, political associations.

The Republic of Crimea is of undoubted scientific interest, since the most important factors determining the linguocultural features of the Russian language in Crimea are inter-lingual interaction (primarily Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Crimean Tatar), the influence of the South Russian dialect language element, cultural and historical architectonics of the region, its territorial administrative uniqueness, as well as the cultural and psychological significance of certain concepts for the native Russian language speakers in Crimea. Ethnic groups that have ever lived on the peninsula, favorable and unfavorable geographical, biological factors, history, or geopolitics have influenced the formation of a special linguocultural community in the region, the analysis of which is possible through the study of the nominative sphere.

The compilation and publication of a dictionary reflecting the linguo-regional, linguocultural originality of Crimea is a promising goal of modern Crimean studies, linguocultural studies and language and country studies.

In this study the linguocultural description of regional vocabulary and nominative units with a semantic component 'Crimea' means a lexicographic description of units, the use of which is due to the cultural and historical features of the region, or territorial and administrative features, or a common speech convention, or cultural and psychological significance for the native Russian speakers of Crimea.

The proposed dictionary is a monolingual linguocultural lexicographic work, representing regionally marked vocabulary (culturally and historically significant for the region), for example, pragmatonyms, onyms denoting the realities of Crimea and recorded in the media texts and classical Russian literature, describes units that have cultural and psychological significance for the native Russians of Crimea. In this regard, the Regional Linguocultural Dictionary of Crimea will be aimed at a wide range of readers with the above basic level of Russian language proficiency. It can be useful for philologists, translators, tourists coming to Crimea and everyone who is interested in history, culture, traditions, geography, sights, and everyday life of Crimea.

The Crimea dictionary will be a dictionary with an extended cultural commentary following an alphabetic thematic arrangement principle.

The compilation of this type of dictionary has not only theoretical significance for Russian studies, but also applied relevance, namely: familiarizing all specialists in Russian philology, native Russians and those who study Russian as a foreign language with the history, culture and modern realities of Crimea. After analyzing the vocabularies of the above dictionaries, we came to conclusion that this parameter is not crucial, but from the point of representation, the volume of our vocabulary will approximate to 1000 units. This figure cannot be considered exhaustive. The prospect of the research involve compiling a complete dictionary of linguistic units, covering all thematic groups, and comprehensively describing all aspects of the Crimean people life and the history of the republic.

References

• Agapova, N. A., & Kartofeleva, N. F. (2014). The electronic dictionary of a linguoculturological type project: general conception and the specifics of technical realization. Russian Journal of Lexicography, 2(6), 17-30.

• Ansimova, O. K. (2018). Linguoculture and its reflection in dictionaries: monograph, 2. FLINT.

• Bankova, T. B. (2019). On the Peculiarities of the Interpretation of Lexical Units in a Dialectic Linguocultural Dictionary. Lexicography issues, 16, 77-91. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Bogdanovich, G. Ju. (2003). Russkij Jazyk v Aspekte Problem Lingvokulturologii [Russian Language in the Aspect of Cultural Linguistics Problems]. Dolja Publ.

• Brileva, I. S., Volskaya, N. P., Gudkov, D. B., Zakharenko, I. V., & Krasnyh, V. V. (2004). Russian Cultural Space: A Linguoculturological Dictionary. Gnosis.

• Chulkina, N. L. (2015). Anthropocentric linguistics and linguocultural dictionaries of a new type. Questions of psycholinguistics, 25, 284-299.

• Dorofeev, Yu. V. (2017). Lexicographic reflection of the variability of language in the typological and linguoculturological aspects. Communicative studies, 2(12), 7-19. (In Russ.)

• Federal State Statistics Service. (2021). Population census in the Crimean Federal District. Electronic resource https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/prez_surinov (1).pdf (date of access 05.05.2021).

• Goncharova, N. N. (2011). Tula: facts, events, people ...: linguistic and cultural dictionary. Tula state. un-ty.

• Kobiakova, T. I., & Suntsova, N. L. (2017). Lexicographic description of culture: educational linguocultural dictionaries. Achievements of modern science and education, 5(3), 140-144.

• Kozyrev, V. A., & Chernyak, V. D. (2000). Universe in alphabetical order: Essays on dictionaries of the Russian language. RGPU im. A.I. Herzen.

• Krasnykh, V. V. (2012). Culture, cultural memory and linguoculture: their main functions and role in cultural identification. Bulletin of the Center for International Education of the Moscow State. Uni. Series “Philology. Culturology. Pedagogy. Methodology ", 3, 67-74.

• Lanovaya, T. V. (2017). Linguistic and regional features of regionally marked vocabulary (based on the material of nominative units with the regional component of the meaning “Crimea”). Modern Studies of Social Issues. Krasnoyarsk, 9(3-2), 346-356. (In Russ.)

• Lanovaya, T. V. (2020). Lexicography of nominative units with regional value component ‘Сrimea’. Vestnik of the Mari State University, 14(1), 76-83. DOI: 10.30914/2072-6783-2020-14-1-76-83 (In Russ.).

• Li, J. (2020). Modern national-cultural dictionaries: information potential. Philology and Culture. Kazan, 1(59), 126-131.

• Li, J., Karimullina, R. N., & Rongguo, G. (2019). Corpus of title units of Russian-foreign language reference book. Revista genero & direito, 8(7), 93-102.

• Maslova, V. A. (2001). Linguoculturology: textbook. manual for stud. Higher ed. Institutions. ITs "Academy".

• Rubleva, O. L. (2005). Vladivostok in names from "A" to "Z": toponymic linguistic and cultural dictionary: 500 st. FENU.

• Rudyakov, A. N. (2016). Geo-Russian Studies: Russian in the Global World. LeksRus.

• Uzhova, O. A. (2013). Linguistic and cultural dictionaries - educational dictionaries of culture. Bulletin of the Ivanovo State University. - Series "Humanities". 1, 61-65. Retrieved 05 May 2021 from: http://elibrary.ru

• Vereshchagin, E. M., & Kostomarov, V. G. (2005). Language and culture. In Yu. S. Stepanova (Ed.). Three linguistic and cultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapientems. Indrik.

• Vorobiev, V. V. (2008). Linguoculturology. RUDN.

• Zabashta, R. V. (2019). Culture-Specific Concept of Crimea in a Regional Linguocultural Dictionary. Razvitie obrazovaniya. Development of education, 4(6), 13-18. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Zabashta, R. V. (2018). Russian linguistic world view and Crimean linguistic identity: geolinguistic aspect. In G. Yu. Bogdanovich (Ed.). Modern picture of the world: Crimean context. (pp. 57-75). Simferopol: IT "Arial".