The article is dedicated to the examination of the systematic criteria of the interrelation between essential and phenomenological characteristics in evolutionary types of signification. The authors explore aspects of the topic such as the cultural evolution of the sign, namely semiogenetic development, and its communicative evolution, or semiosis, which represents the meaningful filling of the sign within the context of speech usage. Special attention is given to the functional dynamics of conventional and unconditional characteristics of the sign at various stages of its development. The object of the study is the dialectic of the substitutive and referential capacities of the sign, which are in constant contradiction throughout the entire semiogenetic process. The property of alterity is analyzed in detail as a fundamental essential feature of any type of signification that allows the sign to relate to what it is not. The focus is on the gradual displacement of unconditional (natural) qualities of the sign by conventional (artificial) characteristics during the transition from lower forms of signification to higher ones. The features of functional differentiation of semantics, syntax, and pragmatics in the signal, symbol, and linguistic sign are discussed. The methodological foundation of the research includes semiotic and structural-semantic analysis methods, as well as a critical rethinking of classical theoretical approaches to general semiotics. The theoretical basis of the work is rooted in the foundational writings of Charles S. Peirce, Charles W. Morris, and Ferdinand de Saussure. The novelty of the research lies in the reterminologization of the main evolutionary types of signification and the critical revision of the status of the linguistic sign. The authors replace Charles S. Peirce’s terminology with more traditional concepts: the indexical sign is viewed as a signal, and the iconic sign is considered a symbol. A special contribution of the authors to the research topic is the justification of the idea that the linguistic sign is, by its nature, not a symbol; however, in the process of communication, a new kind of subjective and performative “linguistic symbolism” emerges based on it. It is established that the transition from a less perfect to a more perfect type of signification along the chain of semiogenesis is revealed through increasing differentiation of the aspects of semiosis: semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. The replacement of the sign’s substitution function with the function of reference has been proven. The article may be of interest to specialists in the field of semiotics and general theory of language.
This article examines recurrent mechanisms of contact-induced adaptation in Russian speech in North Texas and their role in the formation of Russlish as a local contact variety of Russian. The study draws on speech data from 113 Russian-speaking multilinguals collected between 2013 and 2026 in the Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington metropolitan area. The analytical sample contains 106 documented units and contextual fragments from family, educational, professional, religious-community, and digital communication. The analysis covers lexical insertions, hybrid derivation, morphological integration, semantic calquing, changes in collocability, pragmatic markers, and cross-linguistic wordplay. Russlish is distinguished from heritage Russian, situational code-switching, dialectal and nonstandard Russian, and isolated occasional formations. American English is the functionally dominant but not the sole source of contact material; the speakers’ repertoires also include post-Soviet languages, Spanish, and other resources of the local multilingual environment. The study combines sociolinguistic observation, contextual, semasiological, word-formation, and comparative analyses with multilabel quantitative coding. Units were classified by a seven-stage procedure accounting for context, language biography, source model, integration cues, analytical level, and corpus status. This study is the first corpus-based description of North Texas Russlish as an emerging multilingual diasporic microlect using explicit diagnostic criteria. Its systematicity lies not in a fixed lexicon shared by all speakers but in recurrent adaptation mechanisms. Foreign stems enter Russian derivational, inflectional, and syntactic patterns, while Russian words expand their meanings and collocational ranges under contact influence. In the multilabel sample, word formation is represented in 68 of 106 units, morphology in 45, semantic-syntactic processes in 22, lexical integration in 14, and pragmatic functions in 11. Russian remains the structural matrix, whereas lexical bases, semantic models, and interactional resources reflect the community’s multilingual repertoire. In Auer’s dynamic typology, North Texas Russlish is best interpreted as recurrent language mixing with incipient structural sedimentation rather than a fully stabilized fused lect.
This article examines the specific nature of delartemes – «eternal» commedia archetypes – in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s novella «Signor Formica» (1819), aiming to identify the mechanisms of their adaptation within the work. The author substantiates the need to introduce new terms into the methodological framework of literary studies: the «theatrema» – a theatrical archetype that migrates into and adapts within literature–and the «delartema», a subtype of the theatreme that originated in commedia dell'arte and evolved in literature. Varieties of theatrema are distinguished (antique, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist, Enlightenment, and Romantic), while the delartema is designated as a Renaissance theatrema. The study’s relevance stems from the sustained interest among Russian literary historians and theorists in theatremas and delartemas: over the past five years, 13 articles on this subject have been published. The methodology relies on the comparative-historical method, alongside intertextual and historical-cultural approaches. The novelty of this study lies in the development of a model for analyzing delartemas, which is applied to interpret both character portrayals and the author's intent. Drawing on scholarship regarding the history of commedia dell'arte, the author constructs typological profiles of the commedia characters and compares each profile with its corresponding delartema in the novella. While a high degree of correspondence is established between the novella’s versions of the Doctor, Pantalone, the Lover (male), and the Lover (female) and their commedia prototypes, conceptual differences are also noted. The Doctor is demonized, and the grotesque element of the character is intensified – a reflection of the author's attitude toward those who literally destroy artists. Conversely, the Pantalone delarteme is psychologized – albeit in conjunction with Romantic irony – reflecting Hoffmann’s view that anyone capable of admiring art and gravitating toward beauty is also capable of repentance and displays of humanity. The commedia image of the Lover – who is a true artist – acquires psychological depth and becomes multidimensional, whereas the image of the female Lover is, conversely, reduced to a symbol of poetic inspiration. Thus, the mechanisms for adapting delartemas in the novella are the intensification of the grotesque, psychologization, and symbolization.
The article is dedicated to the study of the formation and transformation of the media image of an athlete in the digital environment. The focus is on the concepts of media image, personal branding, and identity as applied to sports publicity. The analysis relies on contemporary theoretical approaches and demonstrates how visual, verbal, and behavioral elements of representation shape a complex, multilayered structure of an athlete's public image. Attention is paid to the interaction of professional, personal, and social levels of the media image, as well as the strategic use of various digital platforms to create differentiated identities. Through the example of Cristiano Ronaldo's media activity, it is shown how a sports figure adapts its positioning to the genre and rhetorical features of platforms, broadening its audience and strengthening loyalty. The work demonstrates that the modern athlete serves not only as an object of media representation but also as an active subject of digital self-construction. The relevance of this research lies in the necessity for theoretical and empirical analysis of the mechanisms of media image formation in the digital environment. A qualitative content analysis of athletes' publications aims to identify thematic, genre, and discursive patterns. Discourse analysis based on M. Foucault and T. van Dijk is employed to highlight stable narratives and rhetorical strategies in constructing a public image. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the digital self-presentation of Russian athletes as independent media subjects, considering cross-platform differences, has been conducted for the first time. The main conclusions of the article are that the same athlete builds different aspects of their public image by utilizing the specifics of each platform. Such media diversity allows for the retention of different audiences, expansion of reach, and flexible management of positioning – which fully aligns with the theories of personal branding and identity theory. The representation of athletes in modern digital media has transformed from a unified, ideologically controlled image of the system's hero to a flexible, multilayered digital identity that adapts to the codes of specific platforms. The digital representation of an athlete is a synthesis of diverse roles serving different functions (emotional engagement, commercial capitalization, social influence, and mythologization of the image). Thus, the concepts of personal branding and identity theory allow for viewing this process as strategic management of identities that provides not only sports but also socio-economic influence.
The article analyzes the reception of the American writer Thomas Wolfe's work in Soviet literary criticism. The study traces the complex and non-linear path of assimilating Wolfe's legacy in the USSR, which was shaped by the ideological frameworks and cultural policies of the era. The article highlights the key stages in this process: from the first fragmentary translations in the 1930s–1950s to the “translation boom” of the late 1960s–1970s, which enabled the systematic study of the writer's oeuvre. Particular attention is paid to the shift in scholarly paradigms: whereas the 1960s–70s were dominated by an approach viewing Wolfe as a critical realist, and his creative evolution was often interpreted as a linear transition from romanticism to realism, the 1980s saw a turn towards analyzing the romantic roots of his artistic world and the problems of his generic originality. It is demonstrated that Soviet stereotypes (excessive sociologism, attribution to the "Southern school," interpreting Wolfe's work through the "romanticism/realism" opposition) began to be overcome in the late Soviet period in the works of A. M. Zverev, N. A. Anastasyev, V. M. Tolmatchoff. The methodological framework is based on historical-literary and comparative-typological analysis, allowing for the reconstruction of the logic behind the development of scholarly thought within the context of the Soviet era. The relevance of this research stems from the need to understand the history of Russian American studies as part of the global literary scholarly process, as well as the increased interest in Wolfe's work in recent decades, whose legacy has long remained on the periphery of Russian researchers' attention. The article argues that contemporary Wolfe studies require abandoning the ideologically charged concepts of "literary movement" and "artistic method." As an alternative, the category of "artistic vision" is proposed, which allows considering Wolfe as a writer-visionary. This approach, rooted in the Romantic tradition and the philosophy of F. Nietzsche, opens perspectives for analyzing Wolfe's biography as the foundation of a deeply personal myth, his dialogue with J. Joyce, W. Faulkner, his critique of the "Lost Generation" and expatriates, as well as the problem of artistic language.
