Some Aspects of Author’s Phraseology of F.M. Dostoevsky

The article is devoted to the authors phraseology of Dostoevsky, which characterizes him as an artist, a native speaker of the Russian language of his time and can distinguish him from other authors. Identification and characterization of the authors phraseological units and authors techniques of their creation on the example of the description of phraseological units to talk about the language creative personality and the features of the idiostyle. The systemic feature of the writers idiostyle when describing phraseology is an extraordinary variety in form, semantic shades and references to precedent texts, as well as a special property of the writers language - universality and originality, which allows you to go beyond the time frame of the writers work. The phraseological units introduced by Dostoevsky in the middle and second half of the XIX century entered the Russian language, they are recognizable and somehow present in the language of the XX and XXI centuries. To become stable expressions, it takes time for a more complete mastering of Dostoevskys texts, reproduction and consolidation of phraseological units in the language. Paradoxically, the unique, multidimensional and inimitable idiostyle of the writer can become an obstacle to entering the language. Moving on from century to century accumulate idioms of the language, and therefore peoples memory. The description of Dostoevskys phraseological units makes it possible to compare both different works of one writer and works of different authors in the synchrony and diachrony of the Russian language

De l’or pour l’industrialisation

Le problème du financement de l’industrialisation est l’un des problèmes centraux dans l’étude de l’histoire soviétique de la période stalinienne. Les chercheurs concentrent traditionnellement leur attention sur la source principale de ce financement – les échanges inégalitaires entre la ville et la campagne. Mais l’industrialisation soviétique a eu également d’autres moyens de financement, moins significatifs, certes, mais plus inattendus. L’un de ces moyens a été l’exportation massive d’antiquités et d’oeuvres d’art. Le début de son essor a coïncidé avec l’élaboration et les premières phases de la réalisation du premier plan quinquennal et s’est prolongé jusqu’au milieu des années trente. Pendant cette période furent vendues à l’étranger non seulement des centaines de milliers de tonnes d’antiquités de second ordre mais également certaines des plus belles œuvres de l’Ermitage et d’autres musées de premier plan du pays. Dans cet article, il est question de la période initiale de cette exportation (1927-1930), des causes qui lui ont donné naissance, de la création de l’organisation Antikvariat, des gens qui ont vendu le patrimoine national et des gens qui l’ont défendu, du premier client avec qui les ventes n’ont pas pu se faire, Germain Seligman, et du premier acheteur des chefs-d’œuvre de l’Ermitage, Calouste Gulbenkian.Gold for industrialization. Soviet export of art to France during Stalin’s five-year plans. – The financing of Soviet industrialization is one of the major issues in the study of the socio-economic history of the Stalin era. Scholars traditionally focus only on one financial source, the unequal exchange between the urban and rural sectors. However, industrialization had other, less significant, non-traditional financial means. One of these was the massive export of art. It started simultaneously with the implementation of the first five-year plan and continued through the mid-1930s. During that time, not only were hundreds of thousands of tons of, so-called, ordinary antiques sold abroad, but also many valuable works from the Hermitage and other major museums of the country as well. This article deals with the beginnings of this mass export of art (1927-1930), its origins, the creation of the organization Antikvariat, the people who sold the national heritage and those who tried to protect it, the first missed sale with Germain Seligman, and the first buyer of Hermitage masterpieces, Calouste Gulbenkian

«Slovo Dostoyevskogo. 2014. Idiostyle and Worldview»: Book Presentation

The monograph is a collective and unified understanding of the style of the Russian writer-classic. In the monograph all the articles of authors grouped by personal principle. In the work of each researcher presents the conceptual framework and the structure of the Dictionary language of Dostoyevsky, the Word of Dostoevsky and Dostoevsky's poetics, combined in one book

THE AUTHOR'S COMPARATIVE LEXICOGRAPHY: PROBLEM STATEMENT. OPPORTUNITIES AND PROSPECTS

The paper first presents the unique material matching the description of the word TIME in different author's dictionaries, created one model - in is the idioglossarium of Dostoevsky and etnnoidioglossarium of Ch. Aitmatov. There are no textual database of all works of Chingiz Aitmatov, there is no etnnoidioglossarium, but perfectly designed structure of a dictionary entry in the idioglossarium of Dostoevsky gives the possibility, firstly, to create a similar entry on a separate piece of another author; secondly, it gives an opportunity to see the peculiarities of the author's intention and his creative workshop, even if the work of different writers belongs to the different epochs; thirdly, it gives an opportunity to see the broad linguocultural and historical context of the writer's Outlook. To compare the language of two writers in this article the most informative, interesting and suitable parameters for comparison on incomplete material are chosen: this word frequency is a significant indicator for idioglossa; this is a system of contextual values - definitions - giving an idea of the completeness of the meaning of the word; this is the phraseology that has a stable form; it is the aphorisms - are important indicators of the author's thinking; this is an associative field, identified vocabulary from the context of the idioglossa; there are figures of speech showing the level of language proficiency and the breadth of precedent texts. Not represented vocabulary of idioglosses, as it does not make sense to compare the wordlist of a single work and the most complete Glossarium of all the works of the two authors. For comparison, two authors were chosen - Russian-speaking and bilingual, writing in Russian and Kyrgyz languages, and this is a unique opportunity to see the creative and linguistic features of each on the basis of Russian. This comparison contains unlimited perspectives. The dictionary description of the writer's language reveals the worldview (“picture of the world”) of each of them does not depend on the subjective assessment of the researcher, but reveals the truth

Une hiérarchie de la pauvreté [Approvisionnement d'État et stratification sociale en URSS pendant la période du rationnement, 1931-1935]

Elena A. Osokina, A hierarchy of poverty. In the late 1920's and early 1930's, the development of forced industrialization in the USSR led to the disorganization of the market and to the state control of the economy. It Ls from this period that the state began to distribute material goods in society, giving priority to industry. The state supply of food and common consumer goods during the 1930's, while guaranting the vital needs of the population, coastituted one of the main foundation blocks in the establishment of a new social order. This article analyzes the government policy of food supply and shows that the first "state founded on social equality" in history presented a social stratification based on a hierarchy of poverty. The rural population was condemned to starvation by the state, while a majority of the urban population, including the pioneers of industry, was constantly undernourished. Even the ruling class, which possessed in its own country far more power than the élite of Western countries, was barely able, as far as material comforts were concerned, to reach the upper middle class standard of living in capitalist societies.Elena A. Osokina, Une hiérarchie de la pauvreté. Le développement de l'industrialisation forcée en URSS, à la frontière des années 20-30, a mené à la désorganisation du marché et à l'étatisation de l'économie. À partir de cette époque, l'État a commencé à répartir les biens matériels dans la société en fonction d'abord de priorités industrielles. L'approvisionnement par l'État en vivres et en biens de consommation courante dans les années 30, en assurant les besoins les plus vitaux de la population, constitua l'un des facteurs principaux de l'établissement d'une nouvelle hiérarchie sociale. L'analyse de la politique de ravitaillement de la population par l'État, développée dans cet article, montre que le premier « État d'égalité sociale » de l'histoire présentait une stratification construite sur une hiérarchie de la pauvreté. La population rurale était condamnée par l'État à la famine tandis que la majeure partie de la population des villes, y compris l'avant-garde industrielle, était perpétuellement sous-alimentée. Même l'élite dirigeante, bien que possédant dans son propre pays un pouvoir beaucoup plus étendu que l'élite occidentale, parvenait à peine à égaler, pour ce qui est du confort matériel, le niveau des tranches supérieures de la classe moyenne des sociétés capitalistes.Osokina Elena A., Obolensky Lydia. Une hiérarchie de la pauvreté [Approvisionnement d'État et stratification sociale en URSS pendant la période du rationnement, 1931-1935]. In: Cahiers du monde russe : Russie, Empire russe, Union soviétique, États indépendants, vol. 39, n°1-2, Janvier-juin 1998. Les années 30 - Nouvelles directions de recherche. pp. 81-97