DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/APULTP.2020.41.62-78 This article deals with the problem of perfume and cosmetic names. Special attention is given to the peculiarities of names in the context of textuality. Perfume and cosmetic names verbalize all features, qualities and individual characteristics of these goods. They create the naming space that consists of four nominative components: brand, basic, genitive and functional-descriptive. It is the basic nominative component that reflects the main part of information about perfumes and cosmetic goods. Four nominative components function as corresponding text information blocks. It means that perfume and cosmetic name combines two spaces. The first space is naming that is represented with the integrated perfume and cosmetic naming complex. The complex grasps four nominative components. The second space is informational that stores the necessary volume of information and creates a communicative background. The information scope is kept in the text construction. The volume of information is divided into four relevant text blocks. Together all these blocks form text boundaries which outline the text construction. The text construction is characterized by two interdependent features coexisting in the integrated perfume and cosmetic naming complex such as discreteness and wholeness. This is a very significant cohesive factor within the text construction. Cohesion is realized on the lexical level involving the mechanism of repetition which is the part of reiteration. On the other hand, repetition may be complete (the naming unit is repeated literally) and partial (the naming unit is repeated partly). The repetition may be between nearest blocks (having common side) and distant blocks (without a common side). The result of the research broadens the set of naming units adding to word, phrase and sentence the next unit recognized as text. Keywords: cohesion, lexical repetition, naming complex, nominative component, text block, text construction. Information about authors: Nikiforova Yevgeniia Yuriivna – PhD; assistant professor at the Department of English Philology and Intercultural Communication; Institute of Philology; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Galitska Elizaveta Anatoliivna – PhD in English Philology E-mail: elt.nikiforova@gmail.com; liza-g@ukr.net REFERENCES Aitchison. Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Oxford, Melbourne, Berlin: Blackwell Publishing, 314 p. [in English]. Beaugrande, R.A. de, Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London, New York: Routledge, 286 p. [in English]. Beaugrande, R.A. de (1980). Text, Discourse, and Process. Nordood N.J.: Ablex, 351 p. [in English]. Blackwell, S.E. (2001). Testing the neo-Gricean Pragmatic theory of anaphora: The influence of constraints on interpretations of coherence in Spain. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (6), 901-941 [in English]. Cornish, F. (2003). The roles of (written) text ana anaphora-type distribution in the construction of discourse. Text, 23 (1), 1-26 [in English]. Dijk, T.A. van (1977). Text and context explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London, New York: Longman, 261 p. [in English]. Dressler, W. (2001). Introduction to Text Linguistics. [Einfuhrung in die Textlinguistik]. Tubingen: W.de Gruyter, 303 p. [in German]. Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. (2000). Compression and global insight. Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (3/4), 283-304 [in English]. Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books, 468 p. [in English]. Galitska, E.A. (2016) Semantics of perfume and cosmetic naming in the social stratification aspect. Studia Philologica, 10, 53-58 [in English]. Galitska, E.A. (2016) Social factor verbalization in the perfume and cosmetic naming. Science and Education. A new dimension. Philology, 25 (105), 20-23 [in English]. Galicka, J. (2018). The specificity of the cosmetic naming: structural aspect [Specyfika nazewnictwa środkow kosmetycznych: aspect strukturalny]. Filologia Polska. Roczniki naukowe Universytety Zielonogórskiego, 4, 307-318 [in Polish]. Gärdenfords, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought, Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 308 p. [in English]. Gentner, D., Goldin -Meadow, S., Meadow, S. (2003). Language in mind. Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press, 528 p. [in English]. Halliday, M., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, New York: Longman, 374 p. [in English]. Hendrinks, P. (2004) Coherence Relations, Ellipsis and Contrastive Topics. Journal of Semantics, 21(2), 133-153 [in English]. Knott, A., Sanders, T., Oberlander, J. (2001). Levels of representation in discourse relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (3), 197-209 [in English]. Melorose, R. (2000). Text semantics and the role of interpretation in modelling indeterminacy. Journal of literary semantics, 29 (1), 1-44 [in English]. Petty, R.D. (2008) Naming names: Trademark Strategy and Beyond: Part one. Selecting a Brand Name. Journal of Brand Management, 15, 190-197 [in English]. Talmy, L. (2000). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognitive. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Concept Structuring System, 1, 409-470 [in English].