the novels of Vladimir Nabokov, as a symbolic representation of the Russian linguistic culture.

Methodology: Vocabulary, naming different human senses, is certainly culturally significant, and forms a cultural phenomenon. The study of semantic features of the lexicon representing perception by sense organs in V. Nabokov's prose within cognitive linguistics and linguoculturology assumes the reference to a problem of psychological, philosophical, linguistic and psycholinguistic understanding of the nature of the specified concepts. The theoretical basis of the research is the works devoted to categorization, conceptualization, and linguoculturology.

Results: The study confirmed the fact that Vladimir Nabokov is a "seeing" writer. The practical value of this work is due to the possibility of using the materials and results of the study in the development of Russian language stylistics courses, special seminars on the analysis of the literary text, as well as special courses on the works of writers of the XX century.

Applications of this study: This research can be used for the universities, teachers, and students.

Novelty/Originality of this study: In this research, the model of the theoretical bases of studying the vocabulary of sensory perception in the system of scientific research is presented in a comprehensive and complete manner.


  1. Boduehe de Kurtene I.A. (1963). Izbrannye trudy po obshchemu yazykoznaniyu / I.A. Boduehn de Kurtene. M.: AN SSR, 1963. – T.1. – 391 s.
  2. Karakuc-Borodina, L.A. (2000). YAzykovaya lichnost' Vladimira Nabokova kak avtora hudozhestvennogo teksta: leksicheskij aspekt. Na materiale russkoyazychnoj prozy. Dis.. kand. fil. nauk. Ufa, 2000. - 247 s.
  3. Kolesov I.YU. (2008). Problemy konceptualizacii i yazykovoj reprezentacii zritel'nogo vospriyatiya (na materiale anglijskogo i russkogo yazykov): monografiya. – Barnaul: BGPU, 2008.
  4. Kravchenko A.V. (1996). YAzyk i vospriyatie: Kognitivnye aspekty yazykovoj kategorizacii / A.V. Kravchenko. – Irkutsk: IGU, 1996. – 160 s.
  5. Marat A. Yahin, Liliya R. (2014). Sakaeva, Burenkova Olga M. The Comparative Analysis of Anthropocentric Phraseological Units in Russian, English and Tatar Languages / The Social Sciences 11 (16) - Pp. 4048-4052.
  6. Maslova V.A. (2001). Lingvokul'tuorologiya. M.: Academia, 2001. - 208 s.
  7. Mubarakshina A, Fedorova N, Fattahova N., (2016). Associative-semantic field of ««nravstvennost«« in modern Russian language//Journal of Language and Literature. - 2016. - Vol.7, Is.2. - P.280-284.
  8. Murav'eva N.YU. (2008). Kategoriya perceptivnosti v semantike glagola i v tekste: dis. … kand. filol. nauk. – Moskva, 2008.
  9. Rubinshtejn, S.L. (2003). Osnovy obshchej psihologii. SPb.: Piter, 2003. – 720 s.
  10. Ryabceva N.K. (2000). Mental'naya leksika, kognitivnaya lingvistika i antropocentrichnost' yazyka // Trudy Mezhdunarodnogo seminara Dialog’2000 po komp'yuternoj lingvistike i ee prilozheniyam. Pod redakciej A.S. Narin'yani. T.1. Teoreticheskie problemy. Protvino. 2000. S. 268–273.
  11. Sadikova, A.G., Kajumova, D.F., Davletbaeva, D.N., Khasanova, O.V., Karimova, A.A. (2016). A Metaphorical Strategy: the Formation of the Semantics of Derived Adjectives. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (17), 10517-10527.
  12. Shamsutdinova, E.Kh., Martynova, E.V., Eremeeva, G.R., Baranova, A.R. (2017). Proverbs and sayings related to animals in Arabic, English and Tatar press. Turkish Online Journal of Design and Communication, April, special edition, 799-804.
  13. Takhtarova S., (2015). Communicative category of politeness in German and Russian linguistic culture//Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. - 2015. - Vol.6, Is.3. - P.497-502. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s2p497
  14. Dijksterhuis, G., Luyten, H., de Wijk, R., & Mojet, J. (2007). A new sensory vocabulary for crisp and crunchy dry model foods. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.012
  15. Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross‐linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics compass, 6(10), 654-672. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361
  16. Heiniö, R. L., Katina, K., Wilhelmson, A., Myllymäki, O., Rajamäki, T., Latva-Kala, K., ... & Poutanen, K. (2003). Relationship between sensory perception and flavour-active volatile compounds of germinated, sourdough fermented and native rye following the extrusion process. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 36(5), 533-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0023-6438(03)00057-4
  17. Foster, K. D., Grigor, J. M., Cheong, J. N., Yoo, M. J., Bronlund, J. E., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2011). The role of oral processing in dynamic sensory perception. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R49-R61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.02029.x
  18. Preys, S., Mazerolles, G., Courcoux, P., Samson, A., Fischer, U., Hanafi, M., ... & Cheynier, V. (2006). Relationship between polyphenolic composition and some sensory properties in red wines using multiway analyses. Analytica Chimica Acta, 563(1-2), 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2005.10.082
  19. Wilkinson, C., Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Minekus, M. (2000). From food structure to texture. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 11(12), 442-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(01)00033-4
  20. Chen, J., & Engelen, L. (2012). Food oral processing: fundamentals of eating and sensory perception. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444360943
  21. Cantiani, C., Choudhury, N. A., Yan, H. Y., Shafer, V. L., Schwartz, R. G., & Benasich, A. A. (2016). From sensory perception to lexical-semantic processing: an erp study in non-verbal children with autism. PloS one, 11(8), e0161637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161637