The written dialogue presented below focuses on the correlation between language and culture, which has a rich tradition of linguistic research. The panelists, well-known Slavic scholars, discuss two research perspectives on the issue of “language and culture” embodied in ethnolinguistics and cultural linguistics. The closeness of the two disciplines is due to their common subject of research; the difference between them, according to Russian linguists, is that ethnolinguistics studies folk traditions within the framework of a diachronic approach, while cultural linguistics focuses on synchrony, and its research scope is not limited to folk language and culture. Depending on their research viewpoint, a linguist may look for culture in a language, and such a perspective is accepted by ethnolinguistics. On the other hand, they may make the determination of the place of language in a culture their research goal, which is a perspective accepted by cultural linguistics. The scholarly reflections include issues related to the formation of cultural linguistics, a young complex discipline that is often criticised for its straightforward interpretation of the connection between linguistic facts and culture and for the lack of general methodological principles. The scholars agree that the description of the correlation between language and culture requires the utmost accuracy and exact wording. Currently, a new stage is under way, a transition from multiple interdisciplinarity to a single discipline. The dialogue substantiates the idea that cultural linguistics can take a decisive role at the stage of “agreement”.

Covid‑19 is highly relevant in 2020; among other things, it is attracting new global socio-communicative and linguistic research. Scholars are addressing the linguistic response to the social and psychological situation in different countries in the era of coronavirus. Thus, the Editorial Board has created a forum for specialists to communicate (in writing), one which makes it possible to provide information about their sources on Covid‑19 and illustrate theoretical materials. The participants chose to analyse different aspects of language during the pandemic; medical terminology and its relevant vocabulary were the same for all countries. The conversation goes beyond the scope of linguistics, as it is important for the researchers to characterise measures taken by governments to combat Covid‑19 and the public’s reaction to them as reflected through language. Additionally, the authors focus on spontaneous linguistic responses to the pandemic in the form of language games, metaphors, and references to historical memory of combatting disasters. The pandemic has also caused long-standing forms of speech communication to change. Researchers from different European countries have took part: Arto Mustajoki (University of Helsinki, Finland; National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia), Nadezjda Zorikhina Nilsson (Stockholm University, Sweden), Rafael Guzmán Tirado (University of Granada, Spain), Anna Tous-Rovirosa and Daria Dergacheva (Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain). The conversation was moderated by Irina Vepreva and Tatiana Itskovich (Ural Federal University Yekaterinburg, Russia).

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Монгольский государственный университет образования Улан-Батор, Монголия * Исследование поддержано программой 211 Правительства Российской Федерации, соглашение № 02. A03.21.0006; исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 19-012-00399А «Аксиологический потенциал современной русской метафоры».

No abstract