2026 Issue №2

An overview of possible criteria for the classification of the renaming of settlements, streets, and various natural objects is presented. All relevant classifications are divided by the author into three groups: basic, those determined by linguistic reasons, and those based on extralinguistic factors. The descriptions are accompanied by examples of the implementation of specific types of renaming in practice. Many typologies, in particular those based on the class of toponym, the frequency of renaming, historical and political reasons, function, place and time of implementation, linguistic reasons, and the number of languages involved, are only briefly mentioned in scholarly sources, and the role of these factors as classification crite­ria is not made explicit. The author introduces original classifications: 1) a division of renam­ing by scale into individual, mass, and comprehensive; 2) a distinction, according to the de­gree of consideration of original toponyms, between independent renaming, formally coordi­nated, semantically coordinated, and conditionally coordinated.

Based on the material of five manuals promoting the lexical approach to learning and teaching English, an analysis of conceptual metaphors in linguodidactic discourse is conduct­ed. The study demonstrates which metaphors are used by the authors of the manuals (M. Lew­is, L. Selivan, H. Dellar, E. Walkley) when describing their experience and seeking to con­vince readers of the effectiveness of the approach they develop, which they consider more natu­ral than those used in the traditional education system. Using methods of continuous sam­pling, content analysis, conceptual analysis, generalization, and data description, the most common conceptual metaphors are identified, presenting the lexical approach in a positive light (among them the most prominent is the journey metaphor), while traditional approaches are framed negatively, thereby forming a clear semantic opposition (a conflict of interpreta­tions) within the discourse.

The article addresses the issue of identifying the structural and semantic characteristics of naval terminology. The aim of the study is to examine objective and subjective methods for determining the degree of correlation between the components of naval binomials. The materi­al for analysis consists of binomial units identified in educational, scientific, and reference literature used in naval higher education institutions, as well as in lecture texts by practition­er instructors. The criteria for selecting binomial units include thematic relevance and combi­natory value. To achieve the stated objectives, the study employs the textological method (with extraction of the required lexemes based on specified identifiers), the method of distributional analysis, respondent surveys, and other approaches. The results of the experimental part of the study (a survey of bilinguals studying a language for specific purposes) confirm the high informative value of the subjective method, since the components of naval binomials named by respondents in their native language are, as a rule, semantically equivalent to the elements of Russian terminological units. The study of naval collocations, revealing stable lexical connec­tions within the analyzed terminology, not only highlights the features of the professional vocabulary of naval personnel but also brings into focus methods for mastering a language for specific purposes.

The article examines the categories of metafiction and metanarration, identifies the spe­cific features of translating metafiction, and the main metafictional strategies in D. Kehl­mann’s novel “Fame”, along with the ways of rendering them into Russian and English. The principal metafictional strategies employed by D. Kehlmann include metaleptic narration and the introduction of metafictional and metanarrative commentary. Using contextual and com­parative analysis of selected fragments from the novel “Fame”, the study finds that the Rus­sian translation is more liberal and expressive than the English one. Expressiveness in the Russian translation is achieved through lexical additions, rhetorical questions, and exclama­tory sentences.