THE ZOONYMIC CODE OF RUSSIAN SUPERSTITIONS: FROM AN ASSOCIATIVE FEATURE TO A CULTURAL SCENARIO

Abstract

The article examines how the zoonymic code of Russian superstitions is represented in the associative field of contemporary native speakers. The research problem is connected with the discrepancy between a complete omen formula and its compressed trace in linguistic consciousness: speakers may no longer reproduce an if–then prediction, yet retain a feature that evokes a culturally familiar scenario. The aim is to describe the transition from an immediate associative feature of an animal name to an evaluative, phraseological or prognostic interpretation. The material consists of handwritten protocols obtained from 100 native speakers of Russian aged 20–40 living in Saint Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. Eleven stimuli were used: rooster, hen, bear, mouse, snake, pig, wolf, horse, goat, cow and fox. Responses were normalized, lemmatized, counted and grouped through componential, contextual and linguocultural analysis. The analysis distinguishes three zones of the associative field: denotative features, evaluative and phraseological transfers, and prognostic or ritual meanings. The denotative core is formed by perceptual and household characteristics, whereas culturally marked meanings become visible when these characteristics are included in the oppositions home–forest, own–alien, day–night, benefit–harm, visible–hidden and order–violation. The identified semantic trajectories are ‘feature → evaluation’, ‘feature → phraseological image’ and ‘feature → sign of a future event’. The rooster activates temporal boundary meanings; the mouse and snake, hidden threat; the horse, movement and road; the cow and hen, household welfare; the fox, wolf, bear, goat and pig, socially evaluative characteristics. It is shown that an associative response by itself should not be interpreted as evidence of literal belief in a superstition. Its linguistic value lies in revealing a compressed cultural marker from which a scenario can be reconstructed. The novelty of the study is the description of a three-stage mechanism linking the denotative meaning of a zoonym with evaluative transfer and prospective semantics. The results clarify the relationship between associative meaning, phraseology and the speech genre of the omen and may be used in further studies of Russian linguistic consciousness and cultural semantics.