Urbotext of a linguistic landscape of Shymkent city

INTRODUCTION. The relevance of the study of urbanonyms is connected with the need to study urban space, which reflects the processes of urbanization and socio-cultural transformations in the modern world. The communicative space of the Kazakh city of Shymkent establishes “local” topical nominations in terms of the use of Russian and Kazakh urbanonyms reflecting historical and socio-cultural contexts, which allows urbanlexemes to serve as markers for citizens and tourists. The purpose of the study is to consider the urban text of Shymkent as a product of urban landscape in statics and dynamics and its constituent components that reflect the interconnection of languages, cultures and mentality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. The author’s card catalogue of urbanonyms of Shymkent serve as the material of the study. General scientific methods (comparison, observation, commenting), method of semantic interpretation and etymological analysis are used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. It is established that throughout the history of the city Shymkent urbanonyms, as verbal signs, testify to the successful cooperation between Russian and Kazakh cultures. Modern urban text of Shymkent has features of variability and stability, reflecting the processes of human cognition and linguistic interpretation of urban geographical reality in the individual consciousness of citizens. The urban text of the analyzed city is characterized by the functioning of its components on the basis of structural stability and their adaptability.
CONCLUSION. The current state of the Kazakh literary language, as well as its history, testify to the fact that the urban text is a vivid illustration of the structure of urbanonymic knowledge, in the context of which the interpretive function of urbanonym is realized, and an actual marker of the Kazakh linguistic personality.

1. Lipatova E.V. Representation of the Samarkand text in the linguocognitive aspect. Neofilologiya = Neophilology, 2024, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 67-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/ 2587-6953-2024-10-1-67-75, https://elibrary.ru/vryrio

2. Kartavenko V. Semantics of toponym as concentrated text. W Kręgu Zagadnień Semantyki i Stylistyki Tekstu. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2014, pp. 55-64. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18778/7969-416-7.06

3. Shurupova O.S. Moscow text of Russian literature and its heroes. Russkaya rech’ = Russian Speech, 2011, no. 1, pp. 97-102. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ndeown

4. Toporov V.N. Petersburg Text of Russian Literature. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo Publ., 2003, 616 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vnjoij

5. Gorbanevskii M.V. Russian Urban Toponymy: Methods of Historical and Cultural Study and Creation of Computer Dictionaries. Moscow, Obshchestvo lyubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti Publ., 1996, 304 p. (In Russ.)

6. Alekseeva E.A. Foreign toponyms as markers of polycultural dialogue. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 22: Teoriya perevoda = Moscow University Translation Studies Bulletin, 2022, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 27-37. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qyosqz

7. Obdalova O.A., Levashkina Z.N. “Narrative” as a cultural phenomenon and an object of discursive activity. Yazyk i kul’tura = Language and Culture, 2019, no. 48, pp. 332-348. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/19996195/48/21, https://elibrary.ru/qncnrd

8. Shcherbak A.S., Elibaeva R.D. Differential mode: manifestation in toponymics. Neofilologiya = Neophilology, 2020, vol. 6, no. 23, pp. 448-455. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2020-6-23-448-455, https://elibrary.ru/eevvxx

9. Dybo A.V., Baibosyn A.M., Kenzhalin K.K. et al. Revisiting the Mongolian stratum of Kazakh place names. Voprosy onomastiki = Problems of Onomastics, 2024, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 27-71. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2024.21.1.002, https://elibrary.ru/epzkue

10. Shcherbak A.S. General Russian word in aspect representation theory of regional concept sphere of onims. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, 2012, no. 4 (108), pp. 246-251. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/nkfyef

11. Lipatova E.V. Hephyronyms in the structure of the Samarkand text. Neofilologiya = Neophilology, 2024, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 871-878. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2024-10-4-871-878, https://elibrary.ru/cykzsy

12. Vepreva I.T., Kharitonova A.V. Onomastic space of Ekaterinburg: level-based markers of regional identity. Voprosy onomastiki = Problems of Onomastics, 2023, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 184-199. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2023.20.3.037, https://elibrary.ru/luvorc

13. Golomidova M.V., Dmitrieva A.V. The image of Ekaterinburg through the prism of urbanonymic discourse. Voprosy onomastiki = Problems of Onomastics, 2024, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 213-236. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2024.21.3.039, https://elibrary.ru/xbtbjh

14. Razumov R.V., Goryaev S.O. Manifestations of regional identity in contemporary Russian urbanonymy. Voprosy onomastiki = Problems of Onomastics, 2020, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 201-219. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/vopr_onom.2020.17.2.024, https://elibrary.ru/xchzvs

15. Shcherbak A.S. Universal property of urbanonymical categorization. Neofilologiya = Neophilology, 2018, vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 5-11. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yvlvop

16. Shmeleva T.V. Veliky Novgorod: Onomastic Portrait. Veliky Novgorod, Pechatnyi Dvor Typography, 2020, 288 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/fuwgqj