The article studies theoretical issues of modern anthropocentric paradigm of scientific knowledge from the history of anthropocentric linguistics development as a special field of language science. The purpose of this study is to answer the question about human influence on the semiotic system. The material result is the unification of specific approaches to anthropological linguistics subject. Therefore, approach based on linguistics solved the problem of establishment of the human’s linguistic nature, his language world. Conversely, the anthropocentric approach in focused on the person as a subject of speech activity that implements his communicative intentions in certain speech acts oriented to the world of semantics and mental human activities. Offered situations are examined on the actual material of the Russian language, which was analyzed from the standpoint of cognitive semantics. The problematics of anthropological linguistics, therefore, is not new and there are no sufficient grounds to consider it firmly established and generally accepted direction; only obvious trends are outlined, therefore it is better to talk about it as a linguistic paradigm having its own background in linguistics and closely related to other related sciences’ issues.

Alpatov, V. M. (2005). History of Linguistics. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 367 p.

Apresyan, Y. D. (2009). Research in Semantics and Lexicography. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 568 p.

Courtenay Baudouin de J. N. (1963). Selected Works on General Linguistics. St.Petersburg: Authors, 315 p.

Boldyrev, N. N. (2014). Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Tambov: Derzhavin Tambov State University press, 236 p.

Boldyrev, N. N. & Dubrovskaya, O. G. (2016). Sociocultural Commitment of Cognitive Linguistics. Ilha do Desterro, 69(1), 173-182.

Budagov, R. A. (1976). A Person and His Language. Moscow: Moscow University press, 253 p.

Bulygina, T. V., & Shmelev, A. D. (2014). Language Conceptualization of the World. Moscow: Nauka, 482 p.

Dreeva, D. M. (2016). Onomastic Citation as the Means of Expression of Intertextual Connections in the Poetic Disсourse. Science Vector of Togliatti State University, 2(36), 242-246.

Frumkina, R. M. (2008). Psycholinguistics: Manual for graduate students. Moscow: “Akademiia” press, 320 p.

Kostomarov, P., & Ptashkin, A. (2015). The Identification of “Author” and “Addressee” in the Discourse of the Representative of Volga Germans of Siberia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 103-107.

Krochuk, J. V. (2015). Language Personality as an Investigation Object of Anthopocentric Linguistic Studies. Molodiy vcheniy, 17(2), 204-214.

Kubriakova, Y. S. (2004). Language and Knowledge. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 560 p.

Kuhn, T. S. (2009). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow: АSТ, 310 p.

Lee, V. (2016). On Human Factor Influence on Semantic Processes in the Language System. GISAP: Philological Sciences, 9, 224-231.

Nikolaeva, T. M. (2008). Non-paradigmatic Linguistics. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 376 p.

Potebnia, A. A. (1985). From the Notes on Russian Grammar, I-II. Moscow: Prosveschenie, 549 p.

Romanova, T. V. (2015). Tracing the Roots of Cognitive Linguistics in Hermann Paul's Principles of the History of Language. Respectus Philologicus, 28(33). 142-154.

Stepanov, S. Y. (2009). Methods and Principles of Modern Linguistics. Moscow: Nauka, 313 p.

Vezhbitskaya, А. (2001). Understanding Cultures Through Key Words. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 288 p.

Zaliznyak, A. A. (2006). The Ambiguity in Language and the Ways of its Representation. Moscow: Languages Slavic culture, 672 p.