The generating of translingual discourse in modern meta-socium suggests that it is a "measure" of intercultural cooperation of the highest level, when cultures do not displace each other, but interact effectively. Such text is always multidimensional both in terms of form and content. But can we qualify this phenomenon as totally positive? There are different opinions on that question in modern science. Few of them are represented in this discussion. We've talked to Jeannete King about translingual literature, its complicated "essence" and points of view of translingual writers. The original discussion is available at https://latllab.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/translanguaging-in-russia-russian-as-acommunicative-bridge-for-minority-languages-and-cultures/comment-page-1/#comment-11Key words: Transculturation, Translingual practices, Intercultural cooperation, Bilingualism ON THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLANGUAGE PRACTICES IN RUSSIA: THESISAccording to 2010 Census, 97% of Russia's multicultural speakers prefer Russian language to their native in usual communication and in professional and creative activities. At the same time a high variety of minority languages are endangered. In this situation translingual practices of non-Russian writers, who create their text in Russian, become a transmission mechanism for saving cultures.A shortlist of their names, which continues to grow even today, proves that this is a significant cultural phenomenon in the entire post-Soviet space: Kyrgyzstan (Chingiz Aitmatov, Sherboto Tokombaeva), Kazakhs (Olzhas Suleimenov, Askar Suleimenov, Anuar Alimjanov, Murat Auezov, Auezkhan Kodar, Aslan Zhaksylykov), Belarus (Vasil Bykov and Ales Adamovich), Georgia (Chabua Amirejibi, Alexander Ebanoidze), Moldova (Ion Drutseh), Bashkortostan (Anatoly Genatullin), Ossetia (Ezethan Uraymagova, Gaito Gazdanov, Ruslan Totrov), Lakia (Efendi Kapiev), Chuvashia (Gennady Aygi), Uzbekistan (Timur Pulatov, Uchkun Nazarov), Azerbaijan (Chingiz Huseynov, Maqsud and Rustam Ibragimbekov), Ukraine (Vitali Korotych), Chechnya (Elbrus Minkailov, Issa and Timur Kodzoev), Ingushetia (Idris Bazorkin, Bagaudin Zyazikov), Karachay-Cherkessia (Isa Kapaev), Tajikistan (Timur Zulfikarov), Chukotka (Yuri Retheu), Khanty-Mansi (Uvan Shestalov), Nivkh (Vladimir Sangi), Tatarstan (Guzel Yakhina), and many others.The problem of minority languages transmission and even survival is very significant for Russia. Its Linguistic landscape is represented by more than 275 languages. At the same time only one language dominates -Russian is preferable for 97 percent of speakers.Meanwhile many languages are in a vulnerable status. So, only one dialect of Karaim language has survived, and even serious measures as the educational program by UNESCO Spoken Karaim to strengthen its position doesn't help in this case. Archi, Bashkir, Kumandin, Chulym, Shor, Tofalar, Tuvan, Chelkan, Teleut languages listed as endangered; Soyot language died out.

No abstract

Terminology of any science, as a result of verbalized scientific expertise, is formed in conjunction with the ordinary consciousness of native speakers. Metaphor in a particular scientific zoological discourse in the Russian and Kazakh languages has not become the object of researchers' attention yet. The comparison of the results of the cognitive mechanism of analogy in the zoological discourse in languages genetically and structurally not identical to each other is of research interest. Comparative analysis of scientific zoological terminology in the Russian and the Kazakh languages confirms the metaphorical nature of the scientific language, generated by the cognitive mechanism of analogy. Most of terminology metaphors in zoo-discourse are modeled on the universal archetype-anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and dendromorphic. Metaphors generated within universals are identical in the Russian and the Kazakh languages. Greco-Latin designations of zoological concepts to which metaphors date back also rely on identified metaphorical universals. In scientific communication the metaphorical expression functions as a readymade term, transmitting scientific information in accordance with the target settings of communication participants. Comparative analysis of metaphoric terms in the Kazakh and the Russian zoological discourse reveals that some terms are different due to different structural features of languages and the differences in the choice of signs that take place in the mechanism of analogy, which is caused by the peculiarities of understanding of the world, geographical, climatic, economic and living conditions of the Russians and the Kazakhs. The scientific metaphor is formed on the basis of conceptual structures already formed in each of the ethnic cultures. There are no rigid boundaries between scientific thinking and the "profane" consciousness; scientific knowledge uses common human knowledge of the world in the process of presenting knowledge in a particular field of science.

Основная задача статьи -попытка осмыслить взаимосвязь между такими процессами, как литературный транслингвизм и ревитализация культуры. Авторы приходят к выводу, что нацио-нальное воображаемое ищет адекватных способов репрезентации в усвоенном языке, в результате чего этот язык не только в определенной степени трансформируется, но и способствует обновлению «говорящей» через него культуры.Ключевые слова: транслингвизм, ревитализация, национальное воображаемое, литература, картина мира ВВЕДЕНИЕ «Какие-то языки могут умирать или стираться с лица земли, но не было и нет всеобщей языковой унификации человечества», -пишет в своей классической работе «Воображаемые сообщества» Б. Андерсон. Язык фигурирует в указанном труде не случайно: именно ему ученый отводит аксиоматическую роль регулятора социальной власти и генератора той самой коллективной идентичности, которую сегодня принято называть национализмом. По Андерсону, «нация» не является продуктом этногенетического процесса и не может быть приравнена к определен-ной «народности»; это -некий конструкт, основной функцией которого является создание общественного самоопределения, базирующегося на общей историче-ской памяти, исторической фатальности и языке: «Нация усматривается в общ-ности языка, а не крови» [Андерсон 2001: 162], «Через язык воссоздается прошлое, воображаются общности и грезится будущее» [Андерсон 2001: 170]. Националь-ное как коллективное воображаемое нуждается в определенной организующей силе, в аксиологических ориентирах, в ценностном поле, способном «вместить» в себя представителей этнически гетерогенных сообществ. Такой силой -наряду с политикой и религией -в историческом аспекте всегда становился язык.До революции, осуществленной «гуттенберговым прессом», говорить о язы-ковой унификации не приходилось: в пределах одной и той же языковой системы существовали различные ее варианты в виде наречий, уже -диалектов и гово-ров, а также элитарный язык «просвещенных» -в разных сообществах латинский, греческий, церковнославянский. (Так, Г.В. Лудольф, пытаясь осмыслить русский язык петровской эпохи, резюмировал, что языка на самом деле два -на одном говорят, на другом -пишут.) Широкое распространение печати способствовало

The article examines a special translation of ethnic culture carried out by a non-Russian bilingual writer in a Russianlanguage fiction text. The authors hypothesize about a special kind of cultural translation that is not considered within the framework of academic translation studies. This type of translation is carried out by a non-Russian bilingual author who creates artistic texts in Russian about the culture of the people to whom s/he belongs by right of birth. Theoretical substantiations are summarized, which, from the point of view of the authors of the article, can serve as an evidence base for the hypothesis put forward. The most relevant theoretical foundations are the works of Y. M. Lotman, G. D. Gachev, G. P. Melnikov.