This article aims at identifying the phenomenon of interethnic division of labor in Volhynia. Based on the 1897 census data, the authors prove that though the interethnic division of labor, based on different ways of life support for ethnic groups, was essential for the eastern regions of the empire, it was an insignificant phenomenon for Volhynia. The 1897 census recorded a total of 2,989,482 people in the province, including 703,477 economically active persons and 2,286,005 persons living at their expense. The main occupation in the province was agriculture, which ensured the expanded reproduction of the workforce: 407,215 (57.9% of all those employed in the national economy) independent farmers provided for themselves and 1,812,773 family members (dependents), or in other words, one fed another 4.5 people. Farmers covered the shortage of personnel in other industries in both rural and urban areas. In addition to agriculture, 74,952 (10.7%) were engaged in industry, 63,956 (9.1%) in services, 42,002 (6.0%) in trade, and 9,195 (1.3%) in transport. 5,329 people or 0.8% of all workers were employed in regional administration, and 8,446 or 1.2 % – in cultural institutions, education, science, and medical care; 6,088 people or about 0.9 % in religious cults, 49,793 people or 7.1% of all employed in the armed forces. By the end of the 19th century, the interethnic division of labor in Volhynia was formed as a result of political and economic factors. The Slavic, Turkic, and German population had similar employment structures, with agriculture predominant. Germans, Czechs, and Belarusians were poorly integrated into the urban community. Little Russians, who made up 2,095,579 people, that is, the majority of the population of the province, played secondary roles in the cities, numbering 46,060 people or about 20% of the city dwellers. Jews, limited in their ability to engage in agriculture, made up half of the population of the cities, and were also concentrated in shtetls that did not have city status; their main occupations were crafts (34.9%), trade (32.8%), services (11.7%), education and culture (9.7%). The Great Russian population performed the main connecting economic, cultural, and administrative functions.

The article deals with the history of Galician szlachta family of Chagrovsky in the 15th century. The first bearer of the family cognomen was the noblewoman Margarita, who, according to the author, was the daughter to a Zhydachiv (Lviv) nobleman of Rusinian origin, Danilo Dazhbohovich Zaderevetsky, the founder of the famous Danilovich family. Zaderevetsky’s wealth came from Polish land grants in 1371–1394, including the Galician villages of Chagriv and Zahvizdia, the main Chagrovsky’s estates. Margarita lived in the late 14th – 1460s. The article analyses the documents and opinions of historians about her origin and family ties. The author traces the fate of Margarita’s husbands, children, and grandchildren. The Chagrovskys were a wealthy family, but not magnates. In Galicia of the 15th century, the majority of Rusinian szlachta were small landowners. The Chagrovskys sought to intermarry with their social peers, so Margarita and her children converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. The Chagrovskys relatively often got married to the Polish szlachta from the Galicia or Lviv, and by the late 15th century they had been heavily Polonized. For various reasons, the family’s history ended in the early 16th century.

Konstantin Yakovlevich Grot (June 22 (July 4), 1853 - September 29,1934) was a Russian Slavist and archivist, the son to Academician Yakov Grot and the brother to the philosopher Nikolai Grot, a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the founders of the Russian Assembly. Grot graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg Imperial University, where he was a student of V.I. Lamansky. As a student, he was awarded a golden medal for The Analysis of the Testimonies of Konstantin Porphyrogenitus About the Southern Slavs. Grot received his Masters degree for his thesis Moravia and the Magyars from the Half of the 9th to the Early 10th Centuries (1881). In 1883, he became professor at the Department of Slavic Studies at the Imperial University of Warsaw. In 1889, Grot defended his doctoral dissertation From the History of Ugria and Slavs in the Twelfth Century (1889). In 1894, after the of Yakov Grot, Emperor Alexander III entrusted Konstantin Grot with the publication of his father's works and literary correspondence. In 1899, Grot moved to St. Petersburg, where in 1905 he was appointed head of the Public Archives of the Ministry of the Imperial Court. In 1905, in the New Collection of Articles on Slavic Studies by Lamansky, Grot published his article “Carpathian-Danubian lands in the fate of the Slavs and in Russian historical studies.” This essay later became the basis of the monograph Austria-Hungary, or the Carpatho-Danubian Lands in the Fates of the Slavs and in Russian Historical Studies, published and republished several times in 1914. In 1907, he edited the monograph Galician Rus Before and Now. Historical Essay and an Eyewitness's Look at the Current State. In 1914, Grot wrote the pamphlet “The Great War and the Carpatho-Danubian Monarchy (On the Coverage of Issues of the Near Future)” He also authored studies on famous Slavists: A. Budilovich, P. Kulakovsky, M. Lavrovsky, V. Lamansky, J. Pervolf, I. Filevich, and others. After the October Revolution, he was the administrator of the Archive. From April 1925 to November 1929, Grot worked as a researcher at the Pushkin House (over staff).

The article analyzes the influence of the ancestral language on the perception of the second language, acquired throughout life. The study relies on the methods of experimental cognitive psycholinguistics, drawing on the theory of embodied cognition and the bilingual mental lexicon. The solution of the general theoretical problem uses early natural bilingualism, with an increasing dominance of the second language and a gradual shift of the native language to the position of the language of family heritage. This type of bilingualism is currently very common in the world, including various regions of the Russian Federation. In modern states, it is conditioned by unbalanced language functional advancement of the state language. The functionally imbalanced language situation has also developed in the regions of Southern Siberia, in the interaction between the Russian and the Khakass or Tatar languages. However, the functionally dominant state language, Russian, experiences a hidden influence of maternal languages not only on speech practices, but also on deep cognitive processes associated with the perception and cognitive processing of units of the acquired language. As the analysis has shown, the influence of the native language is manifested at the level of perception of even the deepest aspects of the semantics of the second language, which include perceptual and emotional aspects. This effects are discussed in the article in the assessments of tactile perception and emotionality given by native Russian speakers and Tatar-Russian and Khakass-Russian bilinguals in relation to the same set of lexical units. The study was carried out on the material of the psycholinguistic RuTurkPsychLing database designed in the laboratory of linguistic anthropology of Tomsk State University: assessments of the words of the Russian, Tatar, and Khakass languages in terms of “familiarity”, “temperature”, “location in space”, “size”, “emotionality” and “manipulation”. The analysis has shown significant differences in the rating system, manifested both in the value of average ratings and their correlations. While the assessments of the Khakass-Russian bilinguals are closer to the assessments of native Russian speakers, the Tatar-Russian bilinguals show significant differences both in the assessments of temperature perception and its correlations with positive and negative assessments.

The article analyzes the most important aspects of the ethno-cultural policy of the interwar Poland in relation to the indigenous East Slavic population of the Polesie region in the 1930s on the example of publications of the local Russian-language periodicals and the attitude towards them by the local Polish authorities. Particular attention is given to the newspaper Pod nebom Poles’ya, published in the Russian literary language in the late 1931 – early 1932 in Pinsk, Polesie Voivodeship of the interwar Poland. The publications in Pod nebom Poles’ya actively promoted the all-Russian identity and Russian culture, considering Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Russians from the point of view of the triune Russian people. In addition, the newspaper voiced cautious criticism of the national policy of the Polish authorities and the population census to encourage the local East Slavic population to preserve their language, culture, and national identity. Since the content of the publications in Pod nebom Poles’ya was unacceptable to the Polish authorities, striving for the complete and final Polonization of the Belarusian population of the eastern provinces of Poland, the local Polish administration pursued a policy of administrative pressure on the newspaper. As a result, Pod nebom Poles’ya was closed, despite its high popularity with the local people. A similar policy of administrative strangulation of objectionable Russian-language periodicals was carried out in relation to other newspapers of Polesie. Thus, the ethnocultural policy of the Polish administration in Polesie in the media sphere was based on in the systemic suppression of the Russian-language press, which defended the ideas of the civilizational unity of the East Slavic peoples.

According to the research, Academician Volodymyr Hnatiuk's scholarly inquiry had focused on the elements of multiculturalism long before the theory of multiculturalism was developed. Hnatiuk studied the problems of coexistence of different ethnic groups in the multicultural realm of the Eastern European area, with a partucLuar attention to the Ugrian Rusins. In his research, Hnatiuk employed basic concepts for modern multicultural studies, such as historically determined multicultural space of Eastern Europe, which combines national and ideological heterogeneity, cultural diffusion and social homogeneity. Yet the authors emphasize that Hnatiuk paid attention to the dominant concepts of ethnocultural frontiers, the contamination of ethnological and psychomental phenomena, the problems of preservation/Loss of the national identity, the political consensus in a poLyethnic society, the polyphony of national consciousness, and others. The multilevel reception of other ethnic groups by the Rusins is studied on the Materials from Ugric Rus (1897-1911) collected and processed by Hnatiuk. The primary role in this cultural topos is assigned to the Slavic nations, who are more often perceived in the plane of rapprochement rather than distance in the dichotomy of In-group/Out-group. The second level is interaction with non-Slavic European nations (Germans, Hungarians). However, the non-European influences were often a factor in the formation of Eastern European identity: the Jewish influence through the biblical books, as well as Central Asian influences from the Turkish attacks and the Ottoman rule in these lands. The authors conclude that the muLticuLturaList methodology expands the geocuLturaL context of ethnological research. The processed material convincingly proves that it can be applied to the European cultural and historical discourses of previous epochs, which contain the features provided by this theory.

The article analyses the lexico-semantic field “pol’za” (Eng. benefit) in terms of their structure in the Rusin and Russian literary language to identify similarities/differences in the structuring of the concept in native speakers' minds. The composition of two lexico-semantic fields was determined based on the lexicographic sources. The analysis of the functional and semantic features and the evaluative spectrum of vocabulary identified two subfields in each field, based on a historically determined change in the understanding of the concept “benefit” by native speakers: a change in the attitude to the interests of the subject (individual or collective). The authors conclude that the vocabulary of the two fields retain traces of the general development of the concept “benefit”, associated in an early and undeveloped consciousness of values with vital needs and common (public) interest, as well as with the consequences of changed production relations that have formed other values correlating with the personal interests and benefits of the subject. The “benefit” for personal interest is interpreted by the public mind as self-interest. Both lexico-semantic fields have borrowed lexemes in their cores, which is associated not only with the significant influence of another cultural and linguistic environment, but also with the general tendency to assign unambiguous linguistic signs, “labels” to complex concepts. The fundamental difference is the absence of the segment “health/healing (of soul and body)” in the Rusin semantic field, while in Russian it is the result of Old Slavonic influence. The revealed differences in the considered lexico-semantic fields are the result of different degrees of their functional load, status, and degree of codification.

The article discusses the controversial issues of diplomatic contacts of the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia with representatives of the Ulus of Jochi ruling elite and attempts to trace the dynamics of changes in the administrative and political status of Galicia– Volhynia in the state system of the Mongolian Empire and the Jochi Ulus (Horde) in the 1240-50s. Based on a comparative historical analysis of the Russian chronicles, as well as the information from some European and Muslim sources, the author concludes that the relations of the Romanovichi with the Jochids were of a multi-level nature and included both diplomatic contacts and military conflicts (the so-called “Tatar” or “Kuremsa” army) and military and political pressure actions (Burundai’s campaigns). As a result, the late 1250s saw a final formalization of the vassal-tributary dependence of Galicia–Volhynia on the Jochi dynasty, with the participation of the Romanovich squads in the military activities of the Mongols against the Eastern European states (the Kingdom of Hungary, the Principality of Lithuania, the principalities of Southern Poland).

The article deals with the genealogy of noblemen of Rusinian origin in Galicia, Russian Voivodeship of the Polish Kingdom in the 15th century (the east of Chervonaya (Red) Rus, now Ivano-Frankivsk Region of Ukraine mainly). The author analyses the specificity and flaws of sources on this topic. The high proportion of small landowners of Rusinian origin is emphasized as an important feature of the Galician gentry, which explains why, after the introduction of Polish law (and gentry self-government) in Chervona Rus, the Galician judge and arbitrator were for many years the gentry of Rusinian origin Ignat Kutitsky (1438-1471) and Stibor Vasichinsky (1435-1459). The author studies the history of these two families in the 15th century: their blood ties, landowning, relations with neighbors. Before 1435, their members converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but failed to polonize in the second half of the 15th century. The confirmation of the forged act of the Galician-Volhynian Prince Lev to the ancestor of the Vasichinskies by the King in 1550-1558 shows that the polonized descendants of the Galician boyars remembered about their Rusinian roots even in the middle of the 16th century.