This issue opens with three articles on Discursive Linguistics. Two of them discuss various issues of the language of science and the provocative effect of mass media. O. A. Boginskaya and N. V. Kachkov describe the cultural specifics of academic discourse while I. V. Evseeva and M. V. Belousova analyze the aggressive speech behavior in online comments to sports news with provocative elements. E. Yu. Pozdnyakova and N. N. Shpilnaya study the way proper and common nouns function in colloquial speech.

Cognitive Linguistics is represented by I. B. Ivanova’s semantic interpretation of temperature vocabulary in the Yakut language.

Cultural Linguistics focuses on the historical and cultural heritage reflected in national languages. A. G. Fomin and B. L. Ianitskii describe the genre of Old Russian spoken charms as an interaction of language, culture, and thinking: these are complex polycoded texts where verbal, non-verbal, and cultural codes correlate. M. A. Schegolev developed a methodological model for analyzing the cumulative effect in Old Germanic culture as a continuity of concepts.

The section of Interdisciplinary Linguistics introduces two reports on trend studies. L. O. Butakova in her psycholinguistic experiment traces the way subjective lexical semantics changes with time in the linguistic consciousness of teenagers. E. N. Guts developed a new methodology for trend analysis to be applied to associative fields obtained by associative experiments separated by decades. M. A. Dukhnova, E. V. Erofeeva, and I. A. Obukhova applied digital research methods to Osip Mandelstam’s poetic oeuvre to identify its basic motives and semantics. O. V. Myaksheva writes about the axiology of the linguistic consciousness in communicative behavior, in particular, how the language of advertising misuses cultural values for commercial purposes. M. D. Smotrov invented a mathematic approach that makes it possible to measure the influence of foreign borrowings on a national language.

The section of Linguistic Theory covers the issues of terminology and semantic reconstruction. A. V. Ivanov used the historical-linguistic research context to identify some patterns in Russian terminology. O. V. Nagel and M. V. Volkova submitted a case study of the Russian word парк (park). Borrowed back in the Petrine era, it survived a number of semantic shifts and adaptations.

The last section is about literary criticism and theory. S. N. Davydov examines the poetry by Anatoly Shteiger against the background of the post-Revolution immigration wave. I. A. Pushkareva and Yu. E. Pushkareva introduce the equine image in the poetry by Tayana Tudegesheva of the indigenous Shorian people. L. N. Lyubimtseva-Natalukha studies the image of Alexander Pushkin across one hundred years of Russian drama, which seems especially relevant in the context of Pushkin’s 225th anniversary (2024). M. R. Nenarokova’s research concentrated on the historical evolution of prefaces to retellings of Shakespearean drama for children.

We thank our authors for their scientific contribution and welcome new ones to publish their research results in philology and linguistics.