Graduated with honors from the Faculty of History and Philology, People’s Friendship University.

Since 1986

Conducts lecture courses for students.


Head of the Department of Social Development of RUDN University.


Defended his Postgraduate diploma. Theme: "The concept of "bread" in the Russian language and Russian culture (linguocultural aspects of the description)."

Since 2006

Head of the Department of Russian Language and Intercultural Communication at RUDN University.


Defended his Doctoral thesis. Theme: "Universal Values in Russian Culture: Linguistic and Cultural Analyzes". Specialty: "Theory of Language”.

Since 2014

Editor-in-Chief of the “Vestnik RUDN. Education issues: languages and specialty” journal (included in the list of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia).


Awarded a diploma of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.


  1. Conducts the following lecture courses for students of the bachelor’s and master’s degree ("International Relations", "Political Science", "Philology" specialties):
    • Russian spelling;
    •  “Generalizing course of Russian spelling”;
    • "Linguoculturology";
    • “Formation of images of linguistic consciousness”;
    • "Basics of teaching Russian as a foreign language."
  2. One of the authors and developers of Russian as a foreign language courses for preschoolers and schoolchildren living abroad, including:
    •  “Learning to read and write together” (information and methodological support for migrant parents);
    • “Kind words. Elementary school of Russian etiquette ";
    • “Russian language - yes!”;
    • "Education fairy tale";
    • "Russian language and music for preschoolers";
    • "The formation of a multilingual personality in preschool institutions: the development of systemic literacy in children";
    • "Educational and methodical complex in the Russian language for children of compatriots living abroad."


  • Developed courses for teaching Russian, including a course on Russian spelling and a course in Russian as a foreign language, focused on the linguocultural approach. The approach is based on the teaching of the system of values of Russian culture as a necessary element of teaching Russian as a foreign language.
  • Created comprehensive methodological manuals on language transmission, strengthening and development of the native language for children of compatriots living abroad, as well as for their parents. The peculiarity is the cultural approach to teaching. Children get acquainted not only with the system of the Russian language and its tiers, but also with the conceptual area of “Russian world”, which allows to get a holistic and in-depth understanding of the principles that underlie the functioning of Russian-speaking society.
  • One of the first russian philologists who proved the need to integrate psycholinguistic and linguocultural approaches to the study of the facts of the language.
  • Introduced the concept of "conceptual enantiosemia", which is used to describe the pragmatic aspects of communication, into the linguistic’s terminology.

Scientific interests

  • Russian spelling (conventional and non-conventional approaches to learning);
  • Problems of linguoculturology and linguistic conceptology at the level of diachrony and synchrony;
  • Questions of axiological linguistics;
  • Systematic teaching of the Russian language;
  • Teaching Russian as a foreign language;
  • Problems of the Russian language and speech culture;
  • Teaching Russian language in elementary school;
  • Teaching Russian language at the national school.
The ratio of the tenets of modern linguistics, which is a direct continuation of systemic linguistics’ founders (Humboldt, Baudouin de Courtenay) theoretical positions, as well as concepts and categories of materialist dialectics allowed G. P. Melnikov to present his principles of the systemic typology of languages and to show their relation to the principles and concepts of other typological concepts. The proposed typology, as the scientist hoped would have to answer queries "in the creation of a unified scientific meta-language that allows to compare heterogeneous types of linguistic communities and to identify their historical and systematic relationship". We guess that Melnikov’s systematic approach has great explanatory power for a wide range of linguistic issues in, for instance, theory and practice of translation, intercultural communication, language varieties, and also in the case of all-pervading power of English. Some conclusions in the works by G.P. Melnikov lead us to supposing that the internal determinant of English is a creative one. In his theory there are some explanations of the all-pervading power of English that we also would like to discuss.
The aim of this paper is to explore the problem of linguocultural adaptation of foreign students at an international university. The research is based on theoretical analyses in interdidactics, linguodidactics, cognitive science, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, methods of teaching foreign languages. The integrative adaptation field is found out and analyzed from the aspects of its structure and content (didactic adaptation, professional adaptation, sociocultural adaptation, intercultural adaptation, social adaptation etc.); its focus (student – student; student – multiethnic academic group; student – teacher; student – academic environment of international university; student – linguocultural environment of international university, etc.). Main types of foreign students’ readiness for the efficient and successful linguocultural adaptation are revealed. existential, individual (personal), intercultural, etc. The obtained data made it possible to develop.
In this article, terminology of the scientific field is considered as a semiotic system, as an expression of a system of concepts reflecting the specific scientific worldview. Expressing a certain specific concept, a term turns into a carrier and a keeper of a piece of information, which has its value in a particular conceptual system, cumulating scientific knowledge accumulated by mankind over the entire period of its existence and expressed in a particular linguistic form. As a verbalized result of special scientific knowledge, science terminology is formed in conjunction with the everyday consciousness of native speakers. In the specific scientific zoological Russian and Kazakh discourse, a metaphor has not been an object of scholars' research. The comparison of the results of the cognitive mechanism of analogy in the zoological discourse in languages that are not genetically similar and not structurally identical to each other generates research interest. The comparative analysis of scientific zoological terminology in the Russian and Kazakh languages confirms the metaphoricity of the language of science, which is generated by the cognitive mechanism of analogy. The heuristic nature of scientific metaphors which are integrally included in scientific activity, hypothetically indicating new properties of the object, plays a significant role in creating terminology. In our opinion, it is important to consider the problem of perception of a metaphor in terms of cognitive processes interacting with linguistic knowledge in producing and understanding a language. A metaphor is regarded as a universal phenomenon, the mechanism of which is the conceptual integration actualized in the discourse. Such integration represents the stages of development of a linguistic sign. The universality of a metaphor affects its studies in the scientific discourse. The identified terminological metaphors in the scientific zoo-discourse are formed out of the universal archetypal models, where artifacts are metaphor-sources (clothing, fabric, work equipment/instruments), which we refer to basic conceptual sources, along with human being, fauna, flora, natural facts. Metaphors that have appeared within the universals are identical in Russian and Kazakh languages. Greco-Latin denotations of zoological terms are based on metaphorical universals. The comparative analysis of term-metaphors in Kazakh and Russian discourses reveals that only a small part of the terms are different due to different structural features of languages and the differences in the mechanism of analogy, caused by the peculiarities of the worldview, the specifics of geo-climatic, economic and business living and household conditions of the peoples. This explains most clearly the connection of the development of a language with the history of material and spiritual culture of the people.