NONE20260716183220140Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-8989071620261820716202666Семантика подтверждения и установки de reA.V.ZimmerlingPushkin State Russian Language InstituteInstitute of Linguistics of Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5996-2648The study outlines the semantics of verification and examines its interaction with de re ascriptions. Verification sentences are analysed as having a layered structure comprising two unary operators, VER and ACT, represented as VER(ACT(p)). The operator VER establishes a link to a verification event in which agent X has established the truth of p in the actual world, while ACT renders the proposition pre-verified, that is, open to verification or falsifica­tion. Standard accounts of the de re versus de dicto distinction maintain that, in contexts of belief and desire, de re attitudes involve ontological commitments to the existence of objects in the actual world. Within a Davidsonian framework, events are treated as spatiotemporal par­ticulars. Accordingly, sentences of the type VER(ACT(p)), which posit the existence of verifi­cation events in the actual world, pattern with de re constructions. On this basis, lexical markers of VER, such as English ‘indeed’, ‘really’, ‘in fact’, and Russian ‘dejstvitel’no’, ‘na samom dele’, may be analysed as de re modal elements conveying a meaning of epistemic ne­cessity. A distinct class of discourse markers includes English ‘certainly’ and ‘naturally’, and Russian ‘razumeetsja’ and ‘estestvenno’, which introduce the operator AFF and signal that the speaker’s expectations are fulfilled. These two classes of operators display different seman­tic properties: markers of certainty do not entail that p is verified de re, whereas VER markers do not encode speaker certainty. The operator AFF may take scope over VER, yielding the configuration AFF(VER(ACT(p))), which is well-formed, whereas the inverse order VER(AFF(ACT(p))) is ill-formed. The proposed analysis accounts for two empirical generali­sations. First, VER is invariably realised overtly at the phonetic level. Second, counterfactual constructions require components that are pre-verified or verified and exclude anti-veridical markers in the protasis. This constraint supports the view that, within the metaphysics im­plicit in natural language, counterfactual worlds are treated as real and are capable of hosting verification events.0716202673910.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16074/93825/Arutyunova, N. D., 1988. The types of the language meanings. Evaluation. Event. Fact. Moscow, 341 p. (in Russ.). [Арутюнова, Н. Д., 1988. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. М., 341 с.].Ayer, D. J., 1964. Belief and evidence. In: Danish yearbook of philosophy. Vol. 1. Copenhagen, pp. 13—22.Benbaji-Elhadad, I., 2023. Preliminaries for a substitution theory of de re. In: Proceedings of SALT, 33, pp. 358—378.Bogomolova, N., 2024. Indexical shift in Tabasaran. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 42, pp. 1—52, EDN: QGMGJK, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09584-3.Bulygina, T. V. and Shmelev, A. D., 1994. Evaluative speech acts: an external and internal perspective. In: N. D. Arutyunova, ed. Logical analysis of language: The language of speech actions. Moscow, pp. 49—59 (in Russ.). [Булыгина, Т. В., Шмелев, А. Д., 1994. Оценочные речевые акты извне и изнутри. В: Логический анализ языка: Язык речевых действий. Н. Д. Арутюнова (ред.). М., с. 49—59.].Bulygina, T. V. and Shmelev, A. D., 1997. The language conceptualization of the world. On the basis of Russian grammar. Moscow, 576 p. (in Russ.). [Булыгина, Т. В., Шмелев, А. Д., 1997. Языковая концептуализация мира (на материале русской грамматики). M., 576 с.] EDN: RBBSFH.Burge, T., 1977. De re belief. Journal of philosophy, 74, pp. 338—362.Carnap, R., 1947. Meaning and necessity. A study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago.Carnap, R., 1955. Meaning and synonymy in natural languages. Philosophical studies, 6, pp. 33—47, EDN: BLESRG, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02330951.Charlow, S. and Sharvit, Y., 2014. Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics and pragmatics, 7, art. 3, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.3.Charnavel, I., 2020. Logophoricity and locality: a view from French anaphors. Linguistic inquiry, 51(4), pp. 671—723, https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00349.Crossley, J. N. and Humberson, L., 1977. The Logic of ‘actually’. Reports on mathematical logic, 8, pp. 11—29.Davidson, D., 1970. Events and particulars. Noûs, 4(1), pp. 25—32, https://doi. org/10.2307/2214289.de Marneffe, M.-C., Manning, C. D. and Potts, C., 2012. Did it happen? The pragmatic complexity of veridicality assessment. Computational linguistics, 38(2), pp. 301—333, 10.1162/COLI_a_00097.Dinges, A., 2024. Absolute gradable adjectives and loose talk. Linguistics and philosophy, 47(2), pp. 341—360, EDN: OLMAWR, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09399-w.Dmitrovskaja, M. A., 1988. Knowledge and belief: the concept of the world and the concept of the human being. In: N. D. Arutyunova, ed. Logical analysis of language: Knowledge and opinion. Moscow, pp. 6—18 (in Russ.). [Дмитровская, М. А., 1988. Знание и мнение: образ мира, образ человека. В: Логический анализ языка: Знание и мнение. Н. Д. Арутюнова (ред.). М., с. 6—18.] EDN: XCBLFH.Frege, G., 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. In: Zeitschrift für Philosophic und Philosophische Kritik. Vol. 100, s. 25—50.Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds. Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3, pp. 41—58.Grice, H. P., 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In: P. Cole, ed. Radical pragmatics. New York, pp. 183—198.Gutzmann, D., Hartmann, K. and Matthewson, L., 2020. Verum focus is verum, not focus: cross-linguistic evidence. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 5 (1), EDN: ZFKHMG, https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.347.Hamblin, C., 1973. Questions in Montague Grammar. Foundations of language, 10, pp. 41—53.Harman, G., 1972. Logical form. Foundations of language, 9, pp. 38—65.Haspelmath, M., 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780198235606.001.0001.Hintikka, J., 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: J. Davis et al., eds. Philosophical logic. Dordrecht.Kaplan, D., 1969. Quantifying. Synthese, 19, pp. 178—214.Kaplan, D., 1986. Opacity. In: L. E. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp, eds. The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. La Salle, pp. 229—289.Kaplan, D., 1989. Demonstratives. In: J. Almog, J. Perry and H. Wettstein, eds. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford, pp. 481—563.Kobozeva, I. M. and Laufer, N. I., 1991. The Semantics of necessity predicates in Russian. Russistik, 1, p. 68—76 (in Russ.). [Кобозева, И. М., Лауфер, Н. И., 1991. Семантика предикатов долженствования в русском языке. Russistik, 1, с. 68—76.].Kratzer, A., 1991. Modality. In: A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds. Handbuch Semantik. Berlin; New York, pp. 639—650.Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, Y., 2002. Indeterminate pronouns. The view from Japanese. In: Yukio Otsu, ed. Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics. Tokyo, pp. 1—2Krifka, M., 2021. Modelling questions in commitment spaces. In: M. Cordes, ed. Asking and answering: rivalling approaches to interrogative methods, pp. 63—95. Tübingen, https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394808.Krifka, M., 2023. Layers of the clause: propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In: J. M. Hartmann and A. Wöllstein, eds. Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich / Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research. Tübingen, pp. 116—183, https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394105.Kripke, S., 1979. A puzzle about belief. In: A. Margalit, ed. Meaning and use. Dordrecht, pp. 239—283.Kripke, S., 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge.Krylova, E. B., 2021. The communicative functions of Danish modal particles. Moscow, 440 p. (in Russ.). [Крылова, Э. Б., 2021. Коммуникативные функции модальных частиц в датском языке. М., 440 с.] EDN: OVXVRV, https://doi.org/10.29003/m2532. 978-5-317-06730-4.Kusliy, P. S., 2023. In Defense of Standard Approach to Logico-Semantic Explication of Non-Specific Transparent Interpretation of Propositional Attitude Reports. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 27(3), pp. 677—697 (in Russ.). [Куслий, П. С., 2023. В защиту стандартного подхода к логико-семантической экспликации неспецифического транспарентного прочтения сообщений о пропозициональных установках. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Философия, 27 (3), с. 677—697.] EDN: EZPUAY, https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2023-27-3-677-697.Kusliy, P. S., Veretennikov, A. A., 2024. Analytical truths in R. Carnap’s theory and in natural language. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 61(1), рр. 184—201 (in Russ.). [Куслий, П. С., Веретенников, А. А., 2024. Аналитические истины в концепции Р. Карнапа и естественном языке. Эпистемология и философия науки, 61 (1), с. 184—201.] EDN: CQFUOE, https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461115.Lederman, H., 2021. Fine-grained semantics for attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14, art. 1, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.1.Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. P., 1932. Symbolic logic. New York; London.Lewis, D. K., 1973. Counterfactuals. Harvard.Lewis, D. K., 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical review, 88, pp. 513—543.Lohnstein, H., 2018. Verum focus, sentence mood, and contrast. In: C. Dimroth and S. Sudhoff, eds. The grammatical realization of polarity contrast: theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches, pp. 55—88, https://doi.org/10.1075/la.249.02loh.Mitrenina, O. V., 2017. Dative-infinitive construction in Russian as a prepositional group. In: E. A. Lyutikova and A. V. Zimmerling, eds. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters: materials of the international conference. Iss. 4. Moscow, pp. 64—70 (in Russ.). [Митренина, О. В., 2017. Дативно-инфинитивная конструкция в русском языке как предложная группа. В: Типология морфосинтаксических параметров: материалы международной конференции. Вып. 4. Е. А. Лютикова, А. В. Циммерлинг (ред.). М., с. 64—70.] EDN: XNVDFB.Montague, R., 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria, 36, pp. 373—398.Nelson, M., 2019. The de re/de dicto distinction. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-%20reports/dere.html [Accessed 31 July 2025].Paducheva, E. V., 1974. On semantics of syntax. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 1974. О семантике синтаксиса. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 1996. Semantic studies. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 1996. Семантические исследования. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 2004. Dynamic models in lexical semantics. Moscow (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2004. Динамические модели в семантике лексики. М.].Paducheva, E. V., 2015. Suspended assertion and nonveridicality: the case of Russian Negative Polarity Items. Russian linguistics, 39 (2), pp. 129—162 (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2015. Снятая утвердительность и неверидиктальность (на примере русских местоимений отрицательной полярности). Russian linguistics, 39(2), с. 129—162.] EDN: UVIFUP, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-015-9145-6.Paducheva, E. V., 2016. Modality. In: Data for the corpus grammar of Russian. The verb. Part I. St. Petersburg, pp. 19—94 (in Russ.). [Падучева, Е. В., 2016. Модальность. В: Материалы к корпусной грамматике русского языка. Глагол. Часть 1. СПб., 19—94].Partee, B. H., 2004. Compositionality. In: Compositionality in Formal Semantics: selected papers by Barbara H. Partee. Cornwall, pp. 153—181.Percus, O. and Sauerland, U., 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung, 7, pp. 228—242, https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2003.v7i0.805.Quine, W., 1953 [1980]. Reference and modality. In: W. Quine, ed. From a logical point of view. 2nd ed. New York, pp. 139—159.Quine, W., 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of philosophy, 53, pp. 177—187.Rebushi, M. and Tulenheimo, T., 2011. Between de dicto and de re: de objecto attitudes. Philosophical quarterly, 61(245), pp. 828—838, https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467- 9213.2011.701.xhalshs-00633982.Russell, B., 1905. On denoting. Mind, 14, pp. 479—493.Salmon, N., 1997. Is de re belief reducible to de dicto? In: A. Kazmi, ed. Meaning and reference (The Canadian journal of philosophy: Supplementary). Vol. 23, pp. 85—110.Sportiche, D., 2020. De dicto omnibus or how to control PRO. Available at: https:// ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004715 [Accessed 31 July 2025].Stalnaker, R., 1972. Pragmatics. In: D. Davidson and G. Harman, eds. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht, pp. 380—397.Stalnaker, R., 1987. Semantics for belief. Philosophical topics, 15, pp. 177—190.Tiskin, D., 2021. De re, de dicto, and the problems of default case. 21—23 June. St. Petersburg.van der Auwera, J. and Plungian, V., 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic typology, 2(1), pp. 79—124, EDN: SCKBGH.Vendler, Z., 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca.Veretennikov, A. A. 2008. Modal philosophy: analytical philosophy and logic. History of Philosophy, 13, pp. 26—48 (in Russ.). [Веретенников, А. А., 2008. Философия модальности: аналитическая философия и логика. История философии, 13, с. 26—48.] EDN: NCDBKP.von Wright, G. H., 1962. Remarks on the epistemology of subjective probability. In: Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: proceedings of the 1960 international congress. Stanford, pp. 330—339.Wang, Ya., 2025. Revisit de re presuppositions. Available at: https://ling.auf.net/ lingbuzz/008989 [Accessed 31 July 2025].Wierzbicka, A., 1987. English speech act verbs: a semantic dictionary. Sidney.Yanko, T. E., 1995. The communicative status of expressions containing the word PRAVDA. In: N. D. Arutyunova and N. K. Ryabceva, eds. Logical analysis of the language. Truth and veracity in culture and language: materials of the conference “Truth and truthfulness”. Moscow, pp. 173—177 (in Russ.). [Янко, Т. Е., 1995. Коммуникативный статус выражений со словом ПРАВДА. В: Логический анализ языка: истина и истинность в культуре и языке: материалы конференции «Истина и истинность». Н. Д. Арутюнова, Н. К. Рябцева (ред.). М., с. 173—177.] EDN: UAODQL.Yanko, T. E., 2001. Communicative strategies of Russian speech. Moscow, 386 p. (in Russ.). [Янко, Т. Е., 2001. Коммуникативные стратегии русской речи. М., 386 с.] EDN: ZGJMBL.Zaliznjak, Anna A., 2006. The language polysemy and its representations. Moscow, 671 p. (in Russ.). [Зализняк, Анна А., 2006. Многозначность в языке и способы ее представления. М., 671 с.] EDN: SMRRBT.Zhang, Y. and Davidson, K., 2024. Interpreting referential Noun Phrases in belief reports — the de re/de dicto competition. Glossa psycholinguistics, 3(1), art. 13, https:// doi.org/10.5070/G60111258.Zimmerling, A., 2008. Local and global rules in syntax. In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue”. Issue 7 (14). Bekasovo, pp. 551—562 (in Russ.). [Циммерлинг, А. В., 2008. Локальные и глобальные правила в синтаксисе. В: Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: по материалам ежегодной Международной конференции «Диалог». Выпуск 7 (14). Бекасово, с. 551—562.] EDN: XGWTCH.Zimmerling, A., 2023a. Biased questions and Hamblin semantics. Typology of Morphosyntactic Parameters, 6(2), pp. 92—135, EDN: JTLCCP, https://doi.org/10. 37632/PI.2023.94.43.005.Zimmerling, A., 2023b. Really: syntactics without semiotics? Slovo. ru: Baltic Accent, 14(3), pp. 125—153 (in Russ.). [Циммерлинг, А. В., 2023б. Конкретно: синтактика без семиотики. Слово.ру. балтийский акцент, 14(3), с. 125—153.] EDN: VNJAWQ, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9.Zimmerling, A., 2025. Grammar. Linguistics. Language. Responding to discussants. Herald of the Russian academy of sciences, 95(1), pp. 69—72, EDN: TQERJR, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331625600842.Zimmerling, A. V. and Baiuk, A. M., 2025. Operator words versus MT systems and LLMs. In: Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue” (2025). Moscow, pp. 471—480, https:// doi. org/10.28995/2075-7182-2025-23-471-480.Единая концепция «Герменевтики и экзегетики» Св. Августина и семь правил толкования Тикония АфриканскогоR.KocharyanMatenadaran after Mesrop Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscriptshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1337-3709The Church Fathers, along with numerous ecclesiastical authors and theologians, con­sistently addressed the problem of interpreting the allegories of divine revelation and the di­vinely inspired narratives of the mysteries of divine wisdom contained in Holy Scripture. In their efforts to understand and explain scriptural narration, they identified fundamental in­terpretative patterns, formulated general principles and methods of exegesis, and, in many cases, developed comprehensive theories and coherent hermeneutical frameworks. Within the broader practice and cultural heritage of human oral and written linguistic activity, the prob­lem of expressing the truth of being through either literal or allegorical meaning is universal and extends beyond divine realities and the sacred sphere alone. Holy Scripture, by revealing the history and meaning of divine creation, providence, and eternal salvation, conveys the truth of existence as a whole and of human spiritual life in particular. St. Augustine of Hippo, guided by his commitment to developing both the theory and practice of understanding and interpreting the allegories of Holy Scripture, turns to the seven rules of interpretation formu­lated by Tyconius the African. Through a critical and scholarly re-examination of the mystical significance of Tyconius’s seven rules, Augustine offers a refined reinterpretation of their meaning and application to the allegories of Scripture, incorporating them into his own her­meneutical conception.07162026405710.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16074/93839/Лексикографически не описанные слова древнейшей русской рукописи Лествицы Иоанна СинайскогоT.G.PopovaImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8431-2962This article examines the functioning of rare and unique vocabulary in the oldest Rus­sian manuscript of The Ladder by St. John Climacus, created in the mid-twelfth century. The aim of the study is to introduce new material into scholarly circulation in the fields of histori­cal lexicology and historical lexicography. The principal research method employed is lin­guotextual analysis.By comparing the lexical composition of the manuscript with the evidence provided by Old Church Slavonic dictionaries and historical dictionaries of the Russian language, the author identified 391 lexemes that had not previously been recorded in historical lexicogra­phy. The manuscript’s vocabulary was also compared with that of other manuscripts of the Preslav translation dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This comparison made it possible to distinguish lexemes common to all manuscripts (226), lexemes replaced in South Slavic versions (84), lexemes replaced in East Slavic versions (55), and lexemes attes­ted only in the oldest manuscript (26). Examples from each of these groups are presented in the form of dictionary entries, including definitions of meaning, extended contextual evidence, indications of possible scribal errors, and instances of lexical variation. The study also identi­fies Byzantine parallels to Old Russian lexemes and discusses cases of lexical homonymy. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of considering extralinguistic factors in the analysis of Old Russian texts, especially the manuscript tradition and the historical circum­stances of a text’s creation.The article demonstrates the significance of lexical analysis of early Slavic texts from dif­ferent chronological periods and geographical areas for the development of a new field of re­search concerned with the phenomenon of medieval ‘collective church memory’.07162026587410.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16074/93842/Семантический потенциал лексемы оргáн в русской поэзии: «свое» и «чужое»N.V.PatroevaPetrozavodsk State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3836-6393The potentially inexhaustible semantic potential of the word, reflected in the full range of its conventional meanings and individual authorial reinterpretations as manifested in literary discourse, has repeatedly attracted philological attention. One such polycode sign, distin­guished by a broad semantic spectrum and complex syntagmatic behaviour, is the word ‘or­gan’. This article analyses the literal and figurative uses, as well as the metaphorical trans­formations, of the lexeme ‘organ’ in Russian literature over approximately one and a half cen­turies of its development. The main material for linguapoetic analysis consists of literary con­texts containing the lexeme ‘organ’, recorded in the National Corpus of the Russian Language and dating from the 18th century to the 20th century. The study aims to identify the main tendencies in the figurative and symbolic use of the word ‘organ’, as well as its individual authorial reinterpretation by poets representing successive literary movements, including the Baroque, Classicism, Sentimentalism, and Romanticism. Particular attention is paid to the process by which this long-assimilated Greek borrowing was integrated into lyric poetry and Russian culture as a whole. The analysis leads to the following conclusions. First, in the poet­ry of the Baroque, Classicist, and Romantic periods, the lexeme ‘organ’ is rarely used in its direct meaning of ‘musical instrument’, appearing mainly in translations and adaptations. In twentieth-century poetry, by contrast, the meaning ‘wind keyboard instrument’ becomes clearly dominant, including in similes, while personifying metaphorical transfers also emerge, such as ‘organ-man’. Second, figurative and symbolic meanings, for example, in metaphorical expressions such as ‘organ of the soul’ or ‘organ of the heart’, become especially productive during the Golden Age, when figurative contexts predominate and reveal the broadest syn­tagmatic and functional-semantic possibilities of the lexeme organ. These uses enrich its dic­tionary meaning through multiple semantic extensions and transform its usual valency pat­terns. Third, the frequency of the lexeme ‘organ’ in Russian poetry correlates closely with the process of assimilation of Western European organ music in Russia, which was particularly intensive during the Baroque, Romantic, and Silver Age periods. Meanings derived from the Psalms and familiar within the Orthodox tradition are adapted and become closely inter­twined with ‘foreign’ themes within the semiosphere of Russian culture.07162026759510.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16074/93844/Kсенопоказатели в славянских языках: корпусно-дискурсивные данныеV.V.FeshchenkoInstitute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1323-4220The article presents a comparative study of xenopointers, understood as pragmatic mark­ers of reported or attributed speech, across contemporary Slavic languages. These units con­stitute an important part of discourse organisation, as they encode speakers’ metacommunica­tive reflection and strategies for representing an external or distanced voice. While individual markers have been extensively described within specific linguistic traditions, their cross-Slavic typological analysis remains insufficiently systematised. The study aims to identify and classify lexical xenopointers in major Slavic languages and to establish their functional and pragmatic correspondences. The research is based on a corpus-driven discourse approach that combines quantitative analysis of parallel and monolingual corpora with qualitative ex­amination of contextual usage. Special attention is given to translated literary texts, which provide a suitable basis for multilingual comparison and for tracing translation strategies involving pragmatic markers. The analysis demonstrates that lexical xenopointers are attested in all examined Slavic languages, including those in which evidentiality is primarily ex­pressed through grammatical means. The study reveals both shared typological patterns and language-specific differences in the etymology, distribution, and pragmatic scope of these markers, as well as considerable variability in their translational equivalents. The findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the interaction between evidentiality, quota­tivity, and epistemic modality in discourse and offer new empirical insights for corpus prag­matics and cross-linguistic research.071620269611710.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93847/Экспликация прагматических смыслов метакоммуникативных комментариев как исследовательская проблемаK.M.ShilikhinaVoronezh State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2478-7296The article investigates pragmatic meanings of procedural metacommunicative com­ments in contemporary Russian and the methods of their objective explication in linguistic description. The focus is on the constructions ‘inache govorja’ (Eng. in other words), ‘prosh­che govorja’ (Eng. simply put), and ‘drugimi slovami’ (Eng. to put it differently), which func­tion as markers of alternative nomination or reformulation in an utterance. The relevance of the study lies in the fact that in most linguistic research, the interpretation of the pragmatic func­tion of such units is based primarily on the researcher’s intuition, which makes the re­sulting conclusions largely subjective. The article proposes an experimental approach that makes it possible to compare linguistic interpretation with native speakers’ perceptions. The experiment was conducted using data from the Russian National Corpus. Participants were asked to evaluate the acceptability of utterances containing different metacommunicative comments, the possibility of their mutual substitution in specific contexts, and the functions these comments perform within the utterance. The results of the experiment show that the metacommunicative constructions under consideration are not perceived by native speakers as fully equivalent and differ in their degree of contextual acceptability. The findings demon­strate that the metacommunicative comment ‘inache govorja’ is semantically and pragmati­cally closer to the construction ‘drugimi slovami’, whereas ‘proshche govorja’ has a narrower semantic scope and a more clearly defined pragmatic meaning. In addition, variability in the functional interpretation of metacommunicative comments is revealed, which confirms the complex and context-dependent nature of their pragmatic meaning. The results demonstrate the necessity of employing experimental methods in the description of metacommunication and refine our understanding of the functional differentiation of procedural metacommunica­tive devices.0716202611813210.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93849/Дискурсивное слово хоть в текстах поэтов Серебряного векаL.L.ShestakovaVinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9585-9472A.S.KulevaVinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6536-3943The consolidated Dictionary of the language of Russian Poetry (20th century) is based on a corpus of texts by ten major poets of the Silver Age, from Innokenty Annensky to Marina Tsvetaeva. The dictionary combines the features of a complete concordance with those of a differential explanatory dictionary. Its distinctive characteristic is the exhaustive scope of its lexical coverage: all units function as headwords, including function words. The functioning of discourse words in poetic language has attracted considerable attention in con­temporary scholarship. This article examines the particle ‘khot’ (‘even’), described in the dic­tionary entry (‘KHOT’) in this dictionary. In explanatory and specialised dictionaries, as well as in scholar­ly literature, ‘khot’ is classified as a particle homonymous with the conjunction ‘khot’/khotya’ (‘although’, ‘even if’). In the poetic dictionary, however, ‘khot’ / khotya’, both as a conjunction and as a particle in its different meanings, is not divided into separate homon­ymous entries but is presented within a single dictionary entry, with variant forms taken into account. This group of units is surrounded by a lexical nest formed by the verb ‘khotet’ (‘to want’), and the etymological connection between ‘khot’ / khotya’ and this nest is further em­phasised by the presence of the homonymous gerund form ‘khot’. A systematic analysis of dictionary exam­ples containing the particle ‘khot’ reveals the specific features of its poetic functioning. This specificity is manifested in the increased frequency of particular collocations and construc­tions involving this word, its recurrence in poetic contexts, its use both in the author’s voice and in the speech of literary characters, and its contribution to the formation of a moderately lowered stylistic colouring of poetry.0716202613314710.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93851/Non sequitur: дискурсивный маркер следовательно в поэтическом и судебном дискурсахO.V.SokolovaInstitute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4399-0094The paper presents a comparative analysis of the inferential discourse marker Rus. ‘sledovatel’no’ (Eng. therefore) in poetic and judicial discourses. The relevance of the study lies in the insufficient attention paid to the pragmatic dimension of discourse markers in insti­tutional and literary communication. The research aims to identify discourse-specific patterns of functional change in inferential markers operating under opposing communicative orienta­tions: linguistic creativity in poetry and normative regulation in judicial discourse. The data comprise corpora of poetic and judicial texts. The methodology combines corpus-based dis­course analysis with pragmatic and speech act theory. In poetic discourse, inferential markers may lose their function of logical inference and be reinterpreted as means of metalinguistic reflection and disruption of logical-syntactic relations. In judicial discourse, by contrast, in­ferential markers are integrated into procedural formulas and perform a declarative illocu­tionary function, institutionally fixing decisions and presenting them as logically inevitable. The study reveals a discourse-driven asymmetry in the pragmatic effects of inferential dis­course markers, demonstrating their linguo-creative potential in poetry and their manipula­tive as well as regulatory functions in judicial communication.0716202614816610.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-8https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93877/Прагматика имплицитной оценочности фразеологизмов в свете корпусно-дискурсивного анализа: выражение «из ряда вон (выходящий)»T.B.RadbilNational Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny NovgorodSamarkand State University named after Sharof Rashidovhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7516-6705R. Kh.AbdullaevaSamarkand State University named after Sharof Rashidovhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4024-714XThe article examines the pragmatic and semantic mechanisms underlying the discursive realisation of implicit evaluativeness in Russian idioms. The aim of the study is to identify the implicit positive or negative evaluative meanings of phraseological units whose evaluative connotations are not recorded in dictionaries but emerge through their immediate and broader contextual environment. The analysis focuses on the idiom ‘iz ryada von’ (vykhodyashchiy) (Eng.‘out of the ordinary’) and its reduced variant ‘iz ryada von’. The research procedure is based on the author’s methodology of content-based and quantitative corpus-discourse analy­sis. The material includes lexicographic definitions of these expressions in the major Russian explanatory and phraseological dictionaries, as well as usage contexts extracted by continuous sampling from the main corpus of the Russian National Corpus. The quantitative analysis is based on the first 100 occurrences of the target expressions in the corpus. The core semantics of the idiom involves the idea of exceptional qualities, properties, or characteristics of a person or object. A preliminary analysis of dictionary definitions showed that neither the definitional zone, nor stylistic labels and the implications of the definitional components contain any indi­cation of evaluative meaning. The only information provided is general expressiveness and stylistic restriction, namely, their association with colloquial speech. However, corpus analy­sis revealed a clear predominance of contexts with negative evaluative colouring. In other words, in actual usage by native speakers of Russian, the expression ‘iz ryada von’ (vykhodyashchiy) is rarely used to describe someone or something genuinely valuable or ex­clusively positive, particularly in moral or spiritual terms. The study concludes that the se­mantic drift of this phraseological unit towards implicit negative evaluativeness may be de­termined by national and cultural factors.0716202616718610.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-9https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93879/Речевые и жестовые сигналы продолжения / завершения монологаA.A.KibrikInstitute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of SciencesLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3541-7637N.A.KorotaevInstitute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian State University for the Humanitieshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2184-6959Yu.V.NikolaevaNational Research University Higher School of Economicshttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-5945During conversation, extended monologic passages may occasionally occur. The aim of this study is to identify the features of speech and gesticulation that speakers use to signal either their intention to continue a monologue or, conversely, the approaching completion of the monologue and their readiness to yield the floor to an interlocutor. The study is based on the corpus Russian Pear Chats and Stories (RUPEX), which is equipped with detailed multi­channel annotation. Each session included in the corpus contains a monologic stage, during which a story is narrated, followed by an interactive conversation. This design makes the cor­pus particularly suitable for the present research purpose. Relying on the episodic structure of the narratives, as well as on the notions of the elementary discourse unit (EDU), the spoken sentence, and the functional types of manual gestures, the study arrives at the following re­sults. Among the verbal signals of monologue completion, it was found that speakers tend to reduce the length of spoken sentences, that is, sequences of EDUs forming a single prosodic complex. In all the sessions examined, speakers concluded their stories with sentences consist­ing of only one or two EDUs. Moreover, in the interval immediately preceding the final seg­ment, most speakers increased sentence length.As for gestural signals of monologue completion, the analysis shows that the final epi­sode, in contrast to the preceding ones, is characterised by a lower proportion of depictive gestures illustrating the events being described, as well as by a higher proportion of pragmatic gestures and beats expressing the speaker’s stance or organising discourse structure. These changes in speech and gesticulation may be interpreted by interlocutors as indications of the forthcoming completion of the monologue and the prospect of turn-taking.0716202618720810.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-10https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16075/93881/Первые Ваулинские чтения: горизонты модальностиN.A.ProbstImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6173-4305A.I.TkachenkoImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1603-7962I.Yu.KuksaWestern Branch of RANEPAhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7177-6541The article presents an overview of the First International Scientific Conference, “Vauli­na Readings. Modality: Language and Text in the Communicative Space”, dedicated to the memory of Professor Svetlana S. Vaulina. It examines the main ideas and key arguments pre­sented in the plenary and breakout sessions, highlighting the principal directions of discus­sion and the most significant theoretical and methodological contributions of the participants.0716202620922010.5922/2225-5346-2026-2-11https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/slovo/16076/93884/