Sergey A. Gubanov

Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Philosophy

Povolzhskiy State University of Telecommunications and Informatics

(Samara, Russia)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2025-1-101-110

Abstract. Epithetation is a process of assigning an attributive meaning to an object represented by a nominal word. The specificity of epithetation is the presence of contextual markers, which leads to the attribution of non-usual, non-systemic attributes from the standpoint of the language norm, but fits into the framework of the individual style, expressing the occasional nature and non-standard thinking of the author. The study of epithetation is transformed from the recognition of regular, systemic variability of the meaning of the attributive word (epithet) to the analysis of the mechanisms of the emergence of the attributive meaning within the epithet complex. This analysis is based on the cognitive-semantic theory of epithetation. It involves the study of the cognitive dependence between the components of the epithet complex, the unity of the defined object and its definition, attribute, as well as the identification of the mechanisms of the formation of a new meaning of this complex, based on the transfer of a attribute from one mental sphere to another. The blending theory of epithetation, as we see it, has the greatest heuristic power. It consists in the analytical description of the mechanisms of formation of mixed cognitive structures, in which the main role is played by attribute words. Epithetation appears as a complex cognitive-semantic and cognitive-metaphorical process of penetration of an attribute into an adjacent (metonymic logic), similar (metaphorical logic) mental zone or as a multi-stage comprehension by various cognitive mechanisms (metaphtonymic logic). The M. Tsvetaeva’s texts provide rich material for observation of the cognitive mechanisms of epithetation. The productivity of the blending model of attribution is proved using the example of the analysis of epithetation of abstract entities. A conclusion is made about the demand for epithetation in the poet's idiostyle, about the frequency of appeals to its metonymic logic, about the complexity of interpreting many attributive constructions without relying on the logic of poetic thinking and context.
Keywords: epithet, epithetation, epithet complex, epithet paradigm, cognitive semantics, Marina Tsvetaeva, individual style.

Full text of the article (PDF)

For citation: Gubanov, SA 2025, ‘Cognitive-Semantic Bases of Epithetation in the M. Tsvetaeva’s Texts’, Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, issue 1 (21), pp. 101–110, https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2025-1-101-110 (in Russ).

References

1. Apresyan, YuD 1974, Leksicheskaya semantika: Sinonimicheskiye sredstva yazyka (Lexical Semantics: Synonymic Means of Language), Flinta publ, Nauka publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
2. Arnold, IV 2002, Stilistika sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka (Stylistics. Modern English language), Flinta publ, Nauka publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
3. Arutyunova, ND 1988, Tipy yazykovykh znacheniy: Otsenka. Sobytiye. Fakt (Types of Language Meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact), Nauka publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
4. Budayev, EV 2016 ‘Kognitivnaya metafora v rakurse teorii kontseptualnoy integratsii’ (Cognitive metaphor in the framework of the conceptual integration theory), Culture and text, no. 4, pp. 6–13. (In Russ.)
5. Bulakhova, NP & Skovorodnikov, AP 2017, ‘K opredeleniyu ponyatiya epitet (predugotovleniye k funktsionalnoy kharakteristike)’ (Concerning the definition of epithet (preparation to the functional characteristic), Ecology of Language and Communicative Practice, Novosibirsk, no. 2 (9), pp. 122‒143. (In Russ.)
6. Vinogradova, SA 2021, ‘Plastichnost semantiki priznakovykh slov’ (Plasticity of semantics of predicate words), Herald of Tver State University Series: Philology, no. 4 (71), pp. 30–38, doi: 10.26456/vtfilol/2021.4.030. (In Russ.)
7. Gubanov, SA 2024, ‘Pronominativnyy epitetnyy kompleks kak chast' epitetnoy paradigmy v proze M. Tsvetayevoy’ (Pronominative Epithet Complex as Part of Epithet Paradigm in M. Tsvetaeva’s Prose), Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, no. 1 (17), pp. 122–129, doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2024-1-122-129. (In Russ.)
8. Zubova, LV 1989, Poeziya Mariny Tsvetaevoy: Lingvisticheskiy aspect (Poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva. Linguistic Aspect), Izd-vo Leningradskogo un-ta publ, Leningrad. (In Russ.)
9. Kovalchuk, LP 2011, ‘Teoriya kontseptualnoy integratsii Zh. Fokonye i M. Ternera’ (Gilles Fauconnier and M. Terner’s theory of conceptual integration), Philology. Theory & Practice, no. 1 (8), pp. 97–101. (In Russ.)
10. Kubayeva, FR 2009, Kognitivno-semanticheskiye kharakteristiki perenesennogo epiteta v angliyskom yazyke (Cognitive-semantic characteristics of the transferred epithet in English), PhD thesis, Moscow. (In Russ.)
11. Revzina, OG 1996, Slovar poeticheskogo yazyka Mariny Tsvetaevoy : v 4 t. (Dictionary of the poetic language of Marina Tsvetaeva. In 4 vols.), vol. 1, Dom-muzey Mariny Tsvetayevoy publ, pp. 5‒40, Moscow. (In Russ.)
12. Tomashevskiy, BV 1996, Teoriya literatury. Poetika (Theory of literature. Poetics), AspektPress publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
13. Fadeyeva, TM 2014, Slozhnyy epitet – yadernaya edinitsa khudozhestvennogo prostranstva v russkom yazyke (A complex epithet is a nuclear unit of artistic space in the Russian language), doctoral thesis, Moscow. (In Russ.)
14. Tsvetaeva, MI 1994–1995, Sobraniye sochineniy (Collected works), vol. 4-7, Ellis-Lak publ, Moscow. (In Russ.).
15. Fauconnier, G. 1994, Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language, Cambridge University Press publ.
16. Fauconnier, G & Turner, M 2006, ‘Mental spaces: conceptual integration networks’, Cognitive linguistics: basic readings, ed. Dirk Geeraerts, Mouton de Gruyter publ, Berlin, New York, pp. 303–371.
17. Sweetser, E 2000, ‘Blended spaces and performativity’, Cognitive linguistics, vol. 11, no. 3/4, pp. 305–333.