Socio-political vocabulary is specific, has a wide scope of application, and is of a commonly used nature. The modern political and economic situation greatly influences language processes in society and shapes the vectors of development of language as a social phenomenon. The article emphasizes that identifying the national self-identity of the Kazakh language is a legitimate requirement of the time.
socio-political vocabulary
language processes in society
self-identity of the Kazakh language
1. Belchikov Yu.A. Social and political vocabulary of V.G. Belinsky. – M., 1962.
2. Desheriev Yu.D., Protchenko I.F. Develop the languages of the peoples of the USSR in the Soviet era. – M., 1968.
3. Momynova B. Socio-political vocabulary in the newspaper “Kazak”. – Almaty: Arys, 1998. (in Kazakh)
4. Dosmukhameduly H. Favorites. – Almaty: Ana Tili, 1998. (in Kazakh).
6. Rustemov L.Z. Kazakh-Russian explanatory dictionary of Arabic-Iranian borrowed words - Al.: Mektep, 1989. (in Kazakh).
7. Momynova B. Socio-political vocabulary in the Kazakh language - Almaty: Kazakh University, 2005. - P.140. (in Kazakh).
8. Eleukenov Sh., Shalgynbaeva Zh. History of the Kazakh book - Almaty: “Sanat”, 1999. (in Kazakh).
9. Myrzabekten Niyazbekuly Saparkhan. Orthoepic dictionary of the Kazakh language – Almaty: Sozdik-dictionary, 2001. (in Kazakh).
10. Baitursynuly A. // Kazak. 1913, No. 2, ch. article (in Kazakh).
11. Baitursynuly A. Writing order // Aykap, N 9-10, 1912. (in Kazakh).
12. Baitursynuly A. Problems of writing // Kazak, N 34-35, 1913. (in Kazakh).
13. Baitursynuly A. On the classification of sounds // Zhana mektep, No. 5. 1927 (in Kazakh)..
16. Baitursynov A. Textbook (in Kazakh).
17. Syzdykova R., Baitursynov A. About life and creativity // About the greatness of language. – Almaty, 1992. (in Kazakh).
18. Verbatim report of the scientific and spelling conference convened on July 2-4, 1929 by the Scientific and Methodological Council of the People's Communist Party and the Central Committee of Science and Technology. – Almaty, 1930 – P. 58.
19. Amirzhanova N. Historical fate of the Latin alphabet in Kazakhstan. – Almaty: Institute for the Development of the National Language – 2012. -With. 300 (in Kazakh).
20. Sauranbaev N. Problems of Kazakh linguistics. – Almaty: “Gylym”, 1988. (in Kazakh).
21. Islam Zhemenei. Persian-Kazakh and Kazakh-Persian dictionary. – Almaty: Sanat, 1994. (in Kazakh).
22. Amanzholov A. Turkic philology and history of writing. – Almaty: Sanat, 1996 (in Kazakh).
Linguistic scientists are unanimous in assessing the specifics of socio-political vocabulary, distinguishing it from other layers of language, and determining its lexical-semantic orientation. Usually these include words that are directly related to state administrative management system, politics and economics, social development processes.
B. Momynova in her work “Socio-political vocabulary in the newspaper “Kazakh”” identifies the following groups of socio-political vocabulary: 1) names of socio-historical categories and concepts; 2) names political system; 3) names of the administrative system; 4) names related to legislation and the judicial system; 5) political names; 6) names of military affairs; 7) names of the sphere of culture, education, 8) religious vocabulary.
Socio-political vocabulary is specific, unlike terms, it has a wider scope of application, and is of a commonly used nature. What makes them similar to terms is their foreign language origin and their belonging to an international vocabulary. This identity sometimes misleads even ordinary native speakers and linguists.
Undoubtedly, socio-political vocabulary serves economics, political science, philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, history and other social and humanitarian sciences and conditionally they can be considered as terms of these industries. Also, socio-political vocabulary in a certain period originates as neologisms (for example, during the years of Soviet power, “collectivization”, “red yurt”, “electrification”, “industrialization”, “perestroika”, “acceleration”, etc.) appeared, is included in wide circulation, then, as it leaves the linguistic scene, it acquires the status of historicism. In terms of the scope and scope of application, the socio-political lexicon is the language of a certain circle of speakers. It is the common property of all members of society, which everyone uses to the best of their linguistic abilities and necessity. The strengthening of the position of this vocabulary in the national language, along with the spheres of education and science, is facilitated by the media. Words as designations of new concepts and phenomena penetrate into the vocabulary through the language of print and periodicals. Through socio-political vocabulary, the state policy and economic course of the country are determined. For this reason, political scientists consider it (vocabulary) as words that characterize the political and economic image of the state; linguists consider these words to be means of journalistic style, therefore, an object of linguistics.
Thus, the vast sphere of distribution of borrowed socio-political vocabulary and the activity of its use sharply distinguishes it from internationalism terms. It is this property (prevalence and belonging to the active vocabulary) that largely contributes to the pollution of the language. At one time, Khalel Dosmukhameduly noted: “Among our Kazakh-Kyrgyz, few know European languages well, many do not. European languages reach us through Russian. When borrowing European words, one must study the history of their origin and, as far as possible, adapt them to the pronunciation of the native language.” The words of the scientist, spoken during the era of the rapid entry of borrowed vocabulary, accurately determined its nature and negative consequences for the native language. This means a timely search for Kazakh equivalents and their replacement of foreign language vocabulary or pronunciation (writing) of borrowed names of socio-political phenomena in accordance with the phonetic system of the Kazakh language (as happened with the words “sayasat”, “kogam”, “memleket”, “ Ukimet”, “Okimet”, “oyaz”, “bolys”, “ukil”, “okil”, etc.) are in demand in our time.
Socio-political vocabulary occupies huge layers of language and has no less broad functional powers. Its development is inextricably linked with the historical and political stages of the formation of society, various socio-economic situations in the country, with the formation and improvement of written literature and the media. Strengthening the function of socio-political vocabulary and the activity of its use are especially increasing thanks to written sources, incl. and media.
Each phase social development leaves its mark on the history of the language. In a certain formation, other words relatively soon pass into the category of historicisms. Other “long-livers”, having been in the active circulation of the national language for a long time, become attributes of everyday speech. They are difficult to distinguish (without careful study) from common vocabulary. Usually these words are formed in accordance with the rules of word formation of the recipient language (“khan, karasha, kaganat, ulys, taipa, ru, bai, kedey, sharua, sharuashylyk”, etc.) or are subject to its sound-letter system (by analogy with “kogam, sayasat, patsha, sultan, myrza, bolys, yaz, posta, poshtabay, akim, akimshilik, mekeme, kense, kyzmet, marteb, dәrezhe”, etc.). The foreign language nature of these words is difficult to predict without preliminary etymological analysis. Thus, the newspaper “Alash Ainasy” wrote in the column “Unknown about a famous name”: “Zhomart is a native Kazakh name, it can be interpreted as “generous, magnanimous.” But if you believe the research of L.Z. Rustemova, this word is formed from the addition of the Persian “javan” (young) and “mard” (brave, brave).
Composition of socio-political vocabulary of Prof. B. Momynova classifies as follows: “nominal combinations of original Kazakh words: ult kenesi, bilik dalizi, bilik tutkasy, zhogary bilik, etc. Combinations with one foreign language component: sayasi leader, sayasi kush, dini confession, bilik Olympia, sayasi baspana, tel sayasati, sayasi sheshim...Nominal combinations of foreign words: sayashi reform, etc.” . Thus, the word “deliz”, perceived as originally Kazakh, actually comes from the Persian “dahliz”, and “sayasi”, “deni”, “sayasat” are of Arab-Persian origin.
Since the 8th century on the Kazakh land under the influence Arab Caliphate Arabic writing spreads, through it the Kazakh language space was enriched with words related to science, education, knowledge of the world, and the state administrative system. Starting from the 15th century, a new era in the development of Arabic graphics among the Turks began. Turkic-speaking tribal communities unite into separate states and nations are formed. From this time until the end of the 19th century, the Kazakhs used the common Turkic book language, based on the Arabic script (Chagatai or Old Uzbek languages).
1870-1910, books preaching the tenets of Islam were published and widely distributed in publishing houses in St. Petersburg and Kazan; love dastans set out based on the Arabian Nights, epic, lyric-epic, historical tales of the Kazakhs. A.V. Vasiliev wrote: “When traveling across the steppe, you rarely see a yurt without books. The demand for books is so great that one book in the Kazakh language is published dozens of times in thousands of copies.” Before colonization by Imperial Russia, the common Turkic book language was also the business language of the period of the khan-administrative system of government.
Arabic-Persian socio-political words that penetrated into Kazakh through various written sources undoubtedly enriched the language. Although in writing they retained a foreign language character (millat, zhamigiat, kizmat, khukmet, gasker, maqama, etc.), in the popular oral speech their sound composition was adapted to the phonetics of the Kazakh language (kogam, nasil, bodan, bolys, oyaz, sot, zani, etc.). Subsequently, thanks to the publication of the first Kazakh newspapers “Turkistan uyalati” (1870-1883) and “Dala uyalyaty” (1888-1902), this vocabulary also underwent graphic changes: words began to be written in accordance with the rules of Kazakh orthographies.
Socially significant changes and news bring new concepts and ideas to life. A nation with a clearly developed written culture promptly finds names for them in its native language or adapts foreign language expressions to the system of the recipient language. Among peoples with an unformed national alphabet and spelling, borrowed vocabulary undergoes only minor changes. Consequently, the preservation of the original spelling and pronunciation of foreign words is a sign of the unformed national graphic (spelling) system of the recipient language. Neither a historically formed language, nor a language at the stage of formation, due to its natural laws, is able to accept a foreign word in its original form. This tendency is especially obvious when the vocabulary of the language is not yet so “filled” with borrowed vocabulary.
“The Kazakh language mainly developed orally: the Kazakh absorbed it with milk and his mother’s lullaby, his native language is in the blood of the Kazakh, with it he matured in the village, played on the mane of a horse, on the back of a camel, burst into song, spread out with rays.” For this reason, before colonization by Russia, before the policy of Russification, foreign words were alien to the Kazakh language; it found equivalents for them with amazing speed and accuracy.
Foreign language vocabulary is accepted without changes by languages that use a nature alien to their own, i.e. borrowed graphics (spelling). Since they preserve the written version of the original source, these written norms are then consolidated in both pronunciation and reading and become widespread. This fact was noted at one time by H. Dosmukhameduly.
New words are spread primarily by the media. The popularization of these words and their acquisition of a national character are directly related to the development of periodicals. The end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries in connection with the publication of the newspapers “Dala Ualayati”, “Turkistan Ualayati”, “Serke”, “Kazak”, “Kazakhstan” and the magazines “Aykap”, “Shora”, “Tan”, “Sholpan” mark represents the heyday of the Kazakh press. In its infancy, the language of newspapers did not deviate from the canons of the Chagatai language. But the periodicals of that time had a goal - to become an ideological mouthpiece for the Kazakhs, for which it was necessary to write in Kazakh. Alash figures played a special role in educating the people. Thus, Akhmet Baitursynuly wrote: “if amateurs literary language I don’t like the colloquial Kazakh style of the newspaper, please excuse us. A thing for the people should be close to the people."
A. Baitursynuly’s great merit in creating a national alphabet based on Arabic script. He, a staunch supporter of graphic reform in the Kazakh language, devoted a number of articles to this problem: “Zhazu tartibi” (“Writing order”), “Zhazu maselesi” (“Problems of writing”), “Dybystardy zhikteu turaly” (“On the classification of sounds”), “Emle turaly” (“About spelling”), “Zhokshyga derek” (“Information for the unaware”). His first primer, “Oku kuraly” (“Teaching Guide”), was published in 1912.
A. Baitursynuly, taking as a basis the original sound system of the Kazakhs, radically transformed the previous written language. Thus, the scientist contributed to the fact that Turkic words, Arabisms, and Persianisms were now written in accordance with the phonemics of the Kazakh language. His new alphabet was recognized by many experts. “The version of Arabic graphics by A. Baitursynov, adapted to the laws of the Kazakh language, was unanimously accepted by the Kazakhs, especially teachers. Because Baitursynov’s graphic reform is based on the nature of the Kazakh language and was developed on a scientific basis.” His “tote zhazu” - “direct letter” was recognized and highly appreciated by world-famous linguists along with the domestic intelligentsia.
The great work of A. Baitursynuly - the Kazakh national alphabet and spelling were widely used until 1929. From this year until 1940, it was used along with the newly adopted Latin alphabet. Further, Baitursynov’s alphabet was used selectively; it (the alphabet) retained its viability. Thus, the luminaries of Kazakh literature M. Auezov and G. Musrepov, although they knew both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet, most of the manuscript was written “tote zhazu” by A. Baitursynuly. This writing is still in demand today. Over a million of our compatriots in China use it in many public spheres.
In connection with the political crisis in the 20s of the twentieth century, in 1928-29 the Kazakh alphabet was translated into a Latin alphabet of 29 letters. In newspapers and various historical documents published at that time, the foreign language “satsyalism”, “satsyialist”, “kamunis”, “balshabek”, “reporma”, “sabet”, “pebyral”, “sabnarkom”, “purtakol” were written in accordance with orthoepy of the Kazakh language, since in the first decade of Soviet power quite favorable conditions were created for the development of national languages. But this was a temporary measure to strengthen the positive image of the Soviets among the peoples of the USSR. As the period of repression approached, cutting off the entire intellectual flower of nations, the policy of Russification came into force again. In 1926-1927, during the discussion about whether to leave the A. Baitursynuly alphabet or whether it would be more effective to switch to the Latin alphabet, even public debates took place under the background of the policy of Russification. The fact is that the Russian writing itself is based on the Latin (Greek) alphabet, so in the future the Kazakh Latin alphabet can easily be replaced by Russian writing.
Still, in 1929, the spelling rules of the Kazakh language, already based on the Latin alphabet, officially established in Kyzyl-Orda, did not differ greatly from the results of Baitursynov’s reform. The reason is the direct participation of Alash figures in the new reform, their ideological resistance to the introduction of sounds and letters alien to the Kazakh alphabet into the Latinized “national” alphabet. After the repression of scientists, in 1938, a set of new spelling rules, where the policy of Russification was already clearly manifested: “previously, due to the lack of letters in the alphabet, words were distorted in writing, but now they will be written correctly with the consonant letters x, v, f. For example, now they will write khat, khan, khiya, fazal, wagon, advice. The alphabet of the Kazakh literary language includes 32 letters.” The new document not only served as the beginning for ignoring the phonetic patterns of the language and borrowing vocabulary without its adaptation in the recipient language, but also interfered with the natural process of replenishing the vocabulary.
Since November 1940, the Kazakh alphabet, already translated into Cyrillic, included 41 letters, and the rules were improved to allow the adoption of foreign language vocabulary without phonetic changes. The latest language reform accepted into the Kazakh alphabet all the sounds and letters inherent in Russian. Now Kazakh already has 42 letters, which serve as graphic tracings of Russian words. The paradox of the current situation is that Kazakh society is so accustomed to the new writing that now the very nature of the native language seems alien. “The striking difference between the pronunciation and writing of words has been erased,” “In the Kazakh language, words are both written and read” - such “positive” reviews about the current state of the Kazakh literary language can sometimes be heard from linguist scientists. And yet, the modern political and economic situation greatly influences language processes in society and shapes the vectors of development of language as a social phenomenon. Consequently, the identification of the national self-identity of the Kazakh language is a legitimate phenomenon and a call of the times.
Bibliographic link
Iskhan Beibit Zhaleluly THE MEANING AND PLACE OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL VOCABULARY IN THE LANGUAGE // International Journal of Applied and basic research. – 2014. – No. 8-1. – pp. 116-119;URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=5651 (access date: 04/06/2019). We bring to your attention magazines published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural Sciences"
Socio-political vocabulary can be divided into groups according to areas of use. Let's look at the types of socio-political vocabulary using specific examples.
I. Words of the actual political discourse:
1. Nomenclature names:
President (“The day before, the Prime Minister presented to the President proposals on the structure and personalities of the Cabinet...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda” 05/17/2012);
Prime Minister (“The day before, the Prime Minister presented to the President proposals on the structure and personalities of the Cabinet...”; Komsomolskaya Pravda, 05/17/2012);
speaker (“The speaker also recalled that the nuclear energy development program until 2030 provides for the construction of 38 new power units in Russia...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 05/12/2012);
b) departments, bodies, etc.
parliament (“...in his address to parliament in 2011, Dmitry Medvedev also promised to submit a law for consideration by deputies...” “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” 04/11/2012);
c) territories
region (“Head of Karelia Andrei Nelidov, who led the region for less than two years, left his post”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 05/22/2012);
2. Terminology of electoral and related technologies (political marketing, etc.):
run for office (“... only Khakamada, who suddenly decided to run for Sverdlovsk region..."; "Literary newspaper", 12.12. 2011; from "to run", fr. ballotter - decide the issue of someone's election by casting votes; initially - by dropping balls called points into the urn);
impeachment (“...The State Duma is preparing an “impeachment” for the head of the Central Election Commission...”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, January 25, 2012; impeachment is the early termination of the powers of the highest state elected official);
inauguration (“There were rumors that for Yeltsin’s inauguration one poet wrote something like a welcoming ode...”; Literaturnaya Gazeta, 08/10/2011; inauguration - ceremonial assumption of office);
lobbyists (“Lobbyists can be individuals or companies working on the basis of an agreement...”; Literaturnaya Gazeta, 12/27/2011);
populism (“Mironov’s words are populism and PR”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/03/2011);
referendum (“...referendum on trust...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 01/22/2011;
electoral (“... intra-elite conflicts, the activity of opponents and insufficient electoral controllability...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 05/22/2012);
electorate (“Are the electorate tired?”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 04/13/2012);
Names of political parties, movements, ideological movements and their members (participants):
national-separatist (“...one of the most illustrative examples the formation of national-separatist aspirations on the basis of a public organization can be served by the activities of the International Circassian Association...”; “Literary newspaper”, 12/12/2011);
pluralists (“...what will our pluralists choose...”; Literaturnaya Gazeta, 12.12.2011);
clan-oligarchic system (“Putin is the guarantor of the peace of the clan-oligarchic power nomenklatura...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 06.23.2011);
mandate (“Former Chairman of the Federation Council Sergei Mironov finally received the long-awaited mandate of a State Duma deputy...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 06/08/2011);
oligarch (“Some observers have already called the RSPP “a trade union of oligarchs”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 06/23/2011);
tricolor (“Actually, all the main ideologies of the Russian population are expressed by the Russian “tricolor” ...”; Literaturnaya Gazeta, 04/19/2012; tricolor is a slang name for the tricolor Russian flag);
charisma (“...what kind of unique charisma a person should have in order to attract young people to himself...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 01/27/2001);
charismatic (“... Primorye residents, disillusioned with the long-term games of “charismatic leaders” ...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 03/28/2012);
II. Terms of law used in the socio-political discourse of the media:
1. The actual terms:
legitimate (“...The diploma of the press secretary of the Investigative Committee of Russia Vladimir Markin is recognized as legitimate...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 01/10/12; the word “legitimate” literally means “legitimate”, but is used in the sense of “supported and understood the broad masses of the people");
federal (“Federal Law “On the Police” ...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 08/27/2011);
extradite, extradition (“Ziyavudinov will be extradited to Russia...”; “Borodin was extradited to Switzerland”; “Gazeta.Ru”);
2. Legal jargon:
green card (“Spitting on the long-awaited green card (residence permit) that I just received...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/26/2001);
privacy (“...The famous “privacy”, the right to privacy and inviolability...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/26/2011);
Among these words there are words that are quite old borrowings, but were updated in the last decade of the twentieth century and acquired new meanings or shades of meaning. The word oligarch, for example, means a representative of big capital who has a serious influence on the government, politics and economy of the country. Previously, this word was not used outside of works on the history of the ancient world, where it denoted each of the co-rulers of ancient Sparta individually. Let us assume that the word “oligarch” has been used in recent years in the press (for example: “The Communist Party of the Russian Federation spoke on behalf not so much of representatives of communist ideology, but of the electorate protesting against the dominance of the oligarchs...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 04.11.2011), strictly speaking, it is not the result of the development of an additional meaning for the word oligarch, meaning a Spartan ruler, but is derived from the word oligarchy in the phrase financial oligarchy - the political and economic domination of a handful of exploitative financiers. We admit that this word could have appeared in some special works, but it was not a fact of public consciousness. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the existence of such individual representatives of the domestic financial oligarchy became a significant and noticeable fact for Russia and was immediately reflected in the language, primarily in the language of the press.
It was in connection with the replacement of fictitious Soviet elections with a real electoral system, with the establishment of democracy in Russia, that the words run for office, rating, and populism were updated and acquired new meanings, shades of meaning and new compatibility. IN Soviet time it was unthinkable to talk about the rating of this or that politician, since Soviet politicians and political figures of “fraternal” countries were revered almost like saints, and a saint cannot have a rating, while bourgeois politicians were perceived as enemies, which also did not imply that they had a rating . The current public competitiveness of Russian politicians and their dependence on voters (electorate) have made possible combination the words rating with the names of specific Russian politicians updated the word populism (“Mironov’s words are populism and PR”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/03/2011); and filled the word to stand (nominate oneself in elections) with real meaning.
We have already spoken about the actualization of the word president above. The same applies to the word referendum (plebiscite, popular vote on any issue).
The words “prime minister” and “speaker” were also borrowed a long time ago, but they have become particularly widespread in the language of the press in recent years. Note that, unlike, for example, the word president, they did not become the official nomenclature names of Russian officials, but became, not least through the efforts of the press, elements of the so-called general jargon. The Prime Minister is the name given to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation. The word speaker refers to the heads of the chambers of the Federal Legislative Assembly (the speaker of the upper house refers to the chairman of the Federation Council).
Actually, the word parliament is also not a nomenclature name for the Russian legislative body, but is a generally accepted designation in the press and in everyday speech (in fact, slang).
The words lobbyist, lobby (from the English lobby - sidelines) have also been found in the Russian language for a long time, but, like those mentioned above, they were not previously relevant to Russian reality and were used only in scientific works and rare newspaper feuilletons about Western parliamentarism. Today, the lobby is as much a part of Russian reality as the parliament, and therefore the words lobby, lobbyists have become part of the active vocabulary of the media. Note that the meaning of this word has somewhat departed from its original meaning - agents of large banks and industrial monopolies, influencing parliamentarians behind the scenes. Today, the term lobby refers directly to deputies of the legislative body, secretly or openly representing (lobbying) the interests of a particular financial, industrial or national group.
The word “federal,” long ago derived from a borrowed stem, also received a new meaning. The same can be said about the words region, regional. The federal-regional opposition replaced the former union-republican (local). The word federal was previously used primarily when talking about the United States of America (federal law, Federal Bureau of Investigation, etc.). In connection with the new state structure of Russia, the word “federal” began to be used in relation to Russian realities (federal law, federal troops). The actualization of the word region occurred due to the need for general short designation for territories (subjects of the federation) having different nomenclature names: republics, territories, regions, autonomous districts, etc.
The words charisma, impeachment, and tricolor are new to the language of Russian media.
Charisma is a gift from God, a spark from God, charm, the ability to lead, genius. A complex characteristic of a politician or religious leader, consisting of many personal qualities and PR techniques.
Impeachment - "revocation" of the highest official(president), forced resignation.
Tricolor (three colors) is the name of the tricolor white-blue-red Russian State Flag belonging to the general jargon.
Pluralism, pluralists are words recorded in Russian dictionaries for a long time, but defined as an idealistic philosophical movement (and its adherents, respectively), opposite to monism and allowing the existence in the world of several spiritual entities independent of each other. In a new meaning - the presence of many equal opinions - it was introduced into active circulation by M. S. Gorbachev.
The words “legitimate” and “illegitimate” were found in the works of Russian publicists at the beginning of the twentieth century, but after the establishment of Soviet power they became the property of only a narrow circle of specialists. At the end of the twentieth century, in connection with the revival of political processes in Russia, these words appeared on the pages of Russian periodicals. The literal meaning of the word “legitimate” is legal, but in recent years it has been more often used in the press to mean “supported by the majority of the politically active population.”
The word separatists (supporters of the separation of a territory from the state to which this territory officially belongs) could previously only be used when talking about Punjab, Kashmir, Ulster or, for example, the “Shan State” in Myanmar. Events in Chechnya made this word one of the most used borrowed words in the Russian press of the nineties.
The word inauguration, denoting the official (often ceremonial) assumption of office by the head of state, is also new to the socio-political vocabulary of the Russian media.
Extradite, extradition (from ex - from, outside and traditio - transfer) - extradition to a foreign state of a person who has violated the laws of that state. A term of international law that became widely used in the Russian language (including in the language of the Russian press) only after the fall of “ iron curtain", when Russian citizens were given the opportunity to freely travel to foreign countries and conduct business outside of domestic jurisdiction.
Green card - residence permit in the USA. The word is borrowed due to the very high level life in the USA, the already mentioned American cultural expansion and, in connection with this, the problem of emigration to the USA, which is relevant for many Russian citizens (especially at the beginning of the period of interest to us).
Privacy is a term taken from English and American law, meaning the individual’s right to privacy and inviolability. Used in the media to shorten this concept.
Economic terms used in the socio-political discourse of the media.
business (“...Meeting of the President with representatives of big business...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 04/25/2012);
brand (“Recently, Putin’s name has become almost a trademark, a brand...”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, April 25, 2012);
voucher (“...the idea of a land certificate, a voucher of a special kind, has not spent the night here yet...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 04/25/2012);
default (“...consequences of default...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”; 04/20/2011);
dealer (“We are the official dealer...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 01/10/2012)
investment (“...attract Western investments...”; Gazeta.Ru, 01/10/2012);
inflation (“Today monetization is subject to manipulation, which causes inflation and imaginary wealth...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 12.28.2011);
commercialization (“The Sabbath against the commercialization of education took place in St. Petersburg...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/27/2012);
consulting (“...employees of a consulting company...” “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/27/2012);
minority (majority) shareholder (“...a minority shareholder has the right to appeal in court the decisions of management bodies, including those regarding the approval of major transactions...”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 06.28.11);
market (“Not in every market you can buy everything you need...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 05/12/2012);
margin lending (ibid.);
privatization (“... total plunder of the people’s property under the banner of “privatization” ...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 04/25/2012);
company (“I would become a teacher, a social studies teacher at school, or a political science teacher at a university. A manager in some company...” (Zhirinovsky, in response to the question of what he would have become if he had not become a politician); “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” , 06/23/2011);
holding (“AAR believes that due to BP’s actions, the Russian-British holding lost the opportunity to work in the Arctic...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 04/12/2011);
issue (“The issue of bonds is carried out in the form of separate issues by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 03/21/2012).
A special place among these terms is occupied by the words privatization (transfer to private ownership) and voucher (privatization check). The opposition press uses the first of them, as a rule, with the stable epithet predatory, and, interestingly, the loyal press often agrees with it on this, occasionally only replacing this epithet with clumsy, mediocre or wild.
Since August 1997, after a serious crisis of non-payments, the economic term default (from the English default - failure to fulfill obligations, especially monetary ones) has firmly entered the Russian language.
The terms investment, inflation, emission, business, firm, commercialization have long been present in the Russian language, but have been updated in the last decade.
Completely new to the Russian language is the word brand (from the English brand - brand, brand, factory mark) - trademark. The word brand is also used in political discourse.
Names of enterprises, organizations, trusts, associations of various forms of ownership, specializing in different areas of activity and management. For example: consulting, holding - these are new words for the Russian language that came from English.
The word dealer - commercial representative - is also new.
IV. Religious terms used in the socio-political discourse of the media:
Wakhi (slang abbreviated from Wahhabis; “And ten guys were captured by Wakhi..."; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/26/2011);
Taliban (“The UN asks the Taliban to conclude a truce with their opponents...”; “Gazeta.Ru”);
Wahhabis are an Islamic fundamentalist movement that played a significant role in the escalation of the armed conflict in the North Caucasus/
V. Ethnographic terms used in the socio-political discourse of the media:
teip (“Today, it seems, only the lazy don’t talk about Chechen and Ingush teips...”; “Gazeta.Ru”, 05/22/2012);
Turkmen-bashi (“Turkmen-bashi himself recently quit smoking at the insistence of cardiologists”; “Gazeta.Ru”);
Teip is a clan among the Chechens and Ingush. Unit of communal clan organization. Until recently, the word was used only in isolated ethnographic works. It appeared in the mass Russian periodical press for the first time after the election of Dzhokhar Dudayev to the post of president of the Chechen Republic. In connection with the notorious Chechen events, it has become quite firmly entrenched in the language of the Russian media.
VI. Technical terms that denote realities of great social significance:
Internet (“Russia has entered the top ten most developing countries in the world in terms of broadband Internet access...”; Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 12/01/2011);
The Internet is a global non-centralized computer information network, which has recently become a very important factor in social and political life.
VII. Philosophical, cultural, sociological, linguistic and psychological terms denoting realities of great social significance:
the establishment (“The Wall Street Journal” writes about “the moral depravity and general disrespect for the law of the Russian establishment”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 06/23/2009);
mentality (“...still a soviet mentality with its incurable atavisms”; “New Time”, no. 50, 1993);
psi factor (“Psi factor with stolen doses...”; “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, 06/23/2011; psychol.);
populism (“But he doesn’t need such populism, says V. Gaevsky (about Putin)..."; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 03/07/2008);
teenager (“Dear teenagers, you are in terrible danger...”; “Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 04/22/2011).
The establishment is the elite, the educated and wealthy part of society, the high society.
Teenager - this word is usually translated as teenager. Why, in this case, it would seem, not to use the actual word teenager? Why is this borrowing necessary? There are two main reasons. The first is that the teenager is not a completely authentic translation English word teen-ager. Teen-ager, strictly speaking, is a person under twenty years of age, while teenagers are usually called young people under sixteen years of age. The second reason is American cultural expansion. Teenagers in the modern Russian linguistic consciousness are probably not just teenagers, but teenagers who cultivate some elements of the mass youth subculture that are common to American teenagers and have American roots.
Mentality is a term used in social psychology, political science and other social sciences. Entered into active lexicon Russian media and politicians in the late 80s - early 90s of the twentieth century and is used to this day. It means a set of certain patterns of thinking that are common to a particular social group (nation, adherents of a particular religious denomination, etc.).
Psi factor is a factor in the psychological state of people. Consists of the most different conditions. Taken into account in election campaigns, etc. political technologies, in the art of management.
Some socio-political terms are difficult to place in a specific thematic group. For example, the lexeme “corruption” is related both to politics itself and to economics, and in addition to this (and even to a greater extent) to criminal law.
The word “manager” is also difficult to classify, since it is widely represented in the socio-political (and not only) media discourse.
Conclusion to the second chapter: classifying the words of the socio-political layer in the language of the Russian media according to spheres of use, we see that, in addition to words of the political context itself, the lexical paradigm of interest to us also includes some borrowed terms of law, legal jargon, economic terms, names of religious movements, ethnographic terms, technical terms, denoting realities that have received great social significance (in our examples - “Internet”, “rating”, “manager”), philosophical, cultural, sociological and psychological borrowed terms denoting realities of significant social or political significance.
CHAPTER 1. History of the study of socio-political vocabulary and the principles of its isolation and description.
§ 1 . Basic approaches to the study of socio-political vocabulary in the linguistic tradition.
§2. Theoretical apparatus.
§3. Principles of identifying and describing socio-political vocabulary.
§4. Field structure of socio-political vocabulary and methods of its presentation and description.
§5. Possibilities of systemic (parametric) analysis of socio-political vocabulary.
CHAPTER 2. Conceptual dominants of socio-political vocabulary (key concepts).
§ 1. General remarks.
§2. Power: linguistic meaning and concept.
§3. State: linguistic meaning and concept.
§4. Society: linguistic meaning and concept.
§5. People and nation", the relationship of concepts and concepts.
§6. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 3. Socio-political vocabulary in the narrow sense.
§1. The central descriptor is "power".
§2. The central descriptor is "state".
§3. The central descriptor is "society".
§4. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 4. Ideological vocabulary. Functional-pragmatic aspect.
§ 1. Irrelevant vocabulary.
§2. Current vocabulary.
2.1. Universal assessment vocabulary.
2.2. Sovietisms.
§3. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 5. Thematic vocabulary.
§1. RIGHT.
§2. FOREIGN POLICY.
§3. MILITARY SPHERE (ARMY).
§4. ECONOMY.
§5. ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERE.
§6. PHILOSOPHY.
§7. RELIGION.
§8. Conclusions.
CHAPTER 6. Inappropriate socio-political vocabulary.
§1. General remarks.
§2. Subjects of power relations (A).
§3. Objects of power relations (B).
§4. Negative attitude of A towards B.
§5. Positive attitude of A towards B.
§6. Negative relationship between B and A.
§7. Positive attitude of B towards A.
§8. Conclusions. 189 CONCLUSION. 191 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 201 APPENDIX.
Introduction of the dissertation 1996, abstract on philology, Zhdanova, Larisa Aleksandrovna
This work is devoted to socio-political vocabulary (hereinafter referred to as SPL) - that part of the Russian language lexicon that is intended for the verbalization of socio-political (SP) relations and their linguistic modeling. Despite the large number of special research and development activities, the OPL is not defined in its composition, structural organization and dynamic potential.
Relevance of the work. Currently, OPL is undergoing significant changes. The circle of its users is expanding, a new political language is being formed. OPL has attracted the attention of linguists since the first post-revolutionary years, and it still attracts increased interest now. Currently, there is a need for a description of OPL that would make it possible to identify its structural features and dynamic potential. The OPL reflects the language-given ways of representing socio-political relations and thinking about them. The study of OPL is part of the current problem in modern linguistics of constructing a “naive linguistic” picture of the world.
The purpose of the study is to determine the composition of the OPL, identify its structure and dynamic processes, to study ideas about socio-political relations in the Russian linguistic consciousness, in the “picture of the world” of native speakers, and to develop approaches to constructing a thesaurus-type OPL dictionary.
Research methods. The work uses methods adopted in lexicology, in lexicographic practice and in the systemic-structural description of linguistic phenomena: component and distributional analysis, interpretation and interpretation, parametric (multidimensional) analysis based on differentiating characteristics and analysis through field structure. The central method is conceptual analysis, consistent with the purpose of the study.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the work applies an onomasiological approach to the identification of OPL, defines its boundaries and composition, and for the first time analyzes the key concepts “power”, “state”, “society”, “people”, “nation” that define the modeling socio-political relations in the Russian linguistic consciousness, a flexible field structure of the OPL with a center in the form of the OPL proper and three adjacent zones is highlighted: ideological, thematic and non-OP vocabulary; the integral principles of the structural organization of the OPL as a whole and the specific principles inherent in the center and adjacent zones have been identified; the dynamic potential of the OPL has been revealed against the background of stability over time.
Empirical basis of the dissertation research. Common linguistic approaches to the study of OPL: content-thematic, connotative, functional-stylistic - proceed from the fact that the vocabulary of OPL is predetermined. The empirical basis of the study was formed on the basis of an onomasiological approach to the identification of APL. Based on the generally accepted definition of socio-political relations, we identified a semantic dominant in it - the intersubjective relationship ARB, where R is the power relationship, A and B are the subject and object of the power relationship. Based on the four-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language (MASU) published in 1987, a sample of about 7,000 words was made, the meanings of which contain the semantics of the power intersubjective relationship ARB. This sample was defined as the composition of the OPL for 1985 and as the reference point in relation to which the development of the OPL is determined. The basis for the study of dynamic processes in OPL was word usage in the texts of periodicals in recent years. To analyze the conceptual dominants of OPL, media texts and dictionary data were also used.
Scientific and practical value of the work. The scientific value of the work lies in the development of a new concept of OPL, in a comprehensive description of the structural organization and dynamics of OPL, in the application of the method of conceptual analysis and the identification of key concepts of OPL in the naive language “picture of the world”.
The results of the work can be used in lexicology and lexicographic practice, in stylistics and in sociolinguistics when studying the media and studying the role of language in the formation of public opinion.
The data obtained can be used in the development of university courses, special courses and special seminars on vocabulary and lexical semantics, stylistics and history of the Russian literary language of the 20th century, and in teaching Russian as a foreign language.
Basic provisions and structure of the work. The dissertation consists of an introduction, six chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and an appendix, which includes lists of words that are not included in the main body of the work.
Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Socio-political vocabulary"
§8. Conclusions.
1. In fact, OPL is the vocabulary that in one way or another describes the power relationship (either in general terms, or a specific - but not state-political - sphere of implementation of the power relationship). Power, relating to predicate vocabulary, opens actant places for subject and object (A and B). Almost the entire OPL can be characterized from the point of view of the actant structure of power, correlation with one of the components of the power relationship of the ARB, but it is for the “peripheral” OPL that this correlation is the dominant principle of the organization and can be traced most clearly. It is this lexical zone that provides the opportunity to identify and calculate the main types of relationships between the subject and object of power, which are presented implicitly (in a modified form) or incompletely in other zones of the OPL.
2. Being universal in nature, OPL proper gravitates towards the conceptual dominant “power”, and in its individual sections comes close to the central group of OPL proper (key descriptor “power”): domination, supremacy.
3. The relationship between A and B can be characterized as normative (neutral), positive and negative. In this regard, ideas about the norm of power, the rights and responsibilities of its owner are updated. Execution of the power relationship within the limits of the norm is not connotated, while underfulfillment and especially the excess of the powers by the subject of power are assessed unambiguously negatively. Within the framework of the non-proper OPL are presented Various types, “scenarios” of the relationship between the subject and the object of power, and due to the predominantly non-specific vocabulary, we can talk about power relations in general.
4. The non-proper OPL is predominantly predicate. All its lexical diversity can be reduced within the framework of the identified types of relationships A and B to a limited list of typical predicates that partially overlap with speech acts: “reward”, “permission”, “mercy”, “patronage”; “punishment”, “prohibition”, “coercion”, “oppression”, “use”; “selfless service”, “benefit”, “request”, “denunciation”, “praise”; “disobedience”, “claim”, “resistance”, etc.
5. Noteworthy is the quantitative predominance and greater “elaboration” (detailed meanings) of vocabulary describing the negative relationship between A and B, which indicates a certain antagonism between the object and subject of power at the level of linguistic consciousness. Analysis of the OPL proper shows the priority in the Russian linguistic consciousness of moral and ethical pre-scripts over subordination, over relations of formal dependence (thus, disobedience or resistance to authority is not considered reprehensible, unless it conflicts with trust and faith on the part of the subject of power, denunciation is assessed unambiguously negatively, regardless of its reasons).
6. From the point of view of the actual linguistic characteristics, attention is drawn to the overwhelming advantage of the original vocabulary, mainly derivative, with an internal form, and a small amount of irrelevant vocabulary, represented by a few stylistically marked words. The groups present relations of synonymy, less often - antonymy, hyperonymy, conversion. In the non-proper OPL there are words that have a pragmatic component of meaning, and in this regard it is close to ideological vocabulary (2nd zone).
Dynamic aspect.
As noted above, all the vocabulary of zone 4 is stable in terms of time, it is all relevant, and is predominantly primordial. The OPL itself is a nomination fund for the OPL itself. These are not the “first”, not “adequate” signs, but they are the ones that make it possible to introduce new points of view on something that already has a name, to name a phenomenon of social life, giving it intimacy, bringing it closer, humanizing it. This feature of the OP itself is the most in demand recently, which is manifested in the active use of this vocabulary in relation to the phenomena of OP life in modern journalism and, accordingly, in the expansion of compatibility and an increase in the frequency of words.
Words describing specific areas of implementation of the power relationship tend to be metaphorical interpersonal relationships, and also, together with the vocabulary of interpersonal relations, state-political relations.
CONCLUSION.
The Conclusion discusses the dynamic characteristics of OPL, the connection with the “picture of the world” of the language community, and also draws general conclusions about the structure of OPL.
1. The analysis of socio-political vocabulary carried out in the dissertation allows us to assert that this lexical group has a strict internal consistency and is clearly structured both at the lexical level and at the level of mental representations. The conceptual dominant of the entire OPL is the concept of power, which projects its features and characteristics onto the lexical community it organizes.
“Power,” being one of the global human concepts, organizes lexical communities of different orders around itself. Thus, power is the dominant group of words that in one way or another denote a power relationship (R in ARB): dominion, rule, dominance, sovereignty, omnipotence, supremacy, plurality, anarchy, autocracy, as well as the conceptual dominant of one of the blocks within the OPL proper, the entire OPL itself, as well as the OPL in the broad sense.
Power refers to predicate vocabulary and opens actant places that can be filled with different lexical content. Within the framework of the concept of power, typical situations can be modeled, generally reflecting the structure of the entire OPL and providing the basis for its classification and analysis. Thus, in the OPL, lexical groups are identified that are correlated with the subject or object of the power relationship, with the so-called. an “intermediate” subject (in accordance with the “hierarchy” of power), as well as describing possible types of relationships between A and B (A has a positive influence on B, A has a positive influence on B Negative influence, B is neutral/positive towards A, B is negative towards A.).
Thus, the work proposes new criteria for identifying and classifying a significant part of the lexical fund, which has the traditional name “socio-political vocabulary,” for the determination of which external features were mostly used.
The semantic complex of power includes ideas about the right to power, the “hierarchy” of power, the norm of power, its rights and responsibilities.
Analysis of the concept of power shows that individual fragments of the concept are universal in nature and reflect the general ideological attitudes and value system of the linguistic society, and, therefore, go beyond the scope of one concept and one lexical-semantic group and reflect a person’s fundamental ideas about the structure of the surrounding world , about your place in it.
2. Based on the relationship of lexemes to the conceptual dominant “power”, a classification of the OPL was made and approaches to constructing the thesaurus of the OPL were developed, a conclusion was made about the structure of the lexical group under consideration: the OPL has a nuclear-field structure with a dedicated center (the OPL itself) and lexical zones (ideological, thematic, not strictly OPL), located to varying degrees from it, it is organized according to the principle of concentric inscription. Inclusion in the OPL of the so-called “peripheral” (not actually OP) vocabulary is unconventional and is motivated by the fact that it is here that the main “scenarios” of power relations are contained in a general form, typical predicates of power are identified that determine the semantic and conceptual organization of the entire OP as a whole.
2.1. Actually, the OPL shows a tendency towards conceptual dominants (in the thesaurus - the descriptors “power”, “state”, “society”) that are significant for the entire OPL (thus, the vocabulary of the “power” group is moving closer to the “peripheral” OPL, the concept of the state is significant for thematic vocabulary ). The structure of the OPL in a broad sense can be represented in the form of a figure.
Picture 1.
4 zone (not actually ^OPL)-^
2.2. Ideological vocabulary, having in some cases a similar denotative correlation with the OPL itself, is characterized by the presence of pragmatic meanings (evaluativeness and “bias”). A significant part of ideological vocabulary combines structural features with attachment to a specific historical era. The most formalized and embodying a specific “picture of the world” is the so-called. "Soviet" vocabulary. For all ideological vocabulary, the determining factor is not integrity, but separation, the sign of “us/alien.” While not always an instrument of assessment, an ideological lexeme is always an object of assessment.
2.3. Despite the internal heterogeneity of the “thematic” vocabulary, the groups identified in its composition demonstrate a number of similar characteristics: the focus on a relatively narrow fragment of reality is combined with a tendency towards determinologization, specific internal division - with the representation of signs of the concept of power in each of the groups.
2.4. In fact, the OPL, describing the power relationship in general, regardless of the specific sphere of implementation, clearly demonstrates those features that, while significant for the entire OPL as a whole, are modified or incompletely presented in other areas of the OPL; typical predicates of power, an idea of the norm of power, the rights and responsibilities of participants in a power relationship, the complex relationship between the subject and the object of power. The correlation of lexemes with one of the components of the power relation ARB determines the structuring of the entire non-proper OPL.
2.5. The structure of the OPL from the point of view of correlation with reality can be presented as follows:
4 zone (not actually OPL) - capable of describing any power relationship, regardless of the sphere of its implementation, power appears as “power in general”;
1 zone (actually OPL) - describes the state-political sphere of implementation of the power relationship, power appears as “state power”, the state and society correspond to the components of the power relationship A and B in relation to ARB;
Zone 3 (thematic vocabulary) - specific narrow areas of state-political or social life are described. The consequence of this is the terminology of the vocabulary and a smaller dynamic potential compared to the OPL itself.
Zone 2 (ideological vocabulary) - the “internal” vocabulary of specific power systems. Like OPL itself, it describes the state-political sphere of implementation of power relations.
3. The lexical-semantic zones identified within the OPL demonstrate both isomorphism and specificity, determined by the dominance of any one feature in their internal organization ("ideological", "gravitation towards conceptual dominants", thematic principle, correlation of lexemes with one of the components ARB power relations). All OPL is characterized by a combination of strict internal consistency with freedom and the possibility of variation. There are priority features of each zone that are specific only to it (in which “rigidity” and disjunctiveness are manifested), at the same time, the structure of the OPL presents a significant “degree of freedom”, diffuseness, and variability: the specificity of the dominant features is combined with the flexibility of the structure, the repeatability of the same features in all OPL zones with integral rights. The different nature of the features themselves takes into account different aspects of collective thinking (thematic principle, the presence of conceptual mental dominants, ideological dominant, connection with language as an action; intersection with speech acts of request, order, etc.).
4. The zones identified within the OPL are permeable, have a clear structure, but blurred boundaries (1st and 3rd, 2nd and 4th zones), demonstrate different ways divide the surrounding reality and think about it. The lexical groups identified within the zones are thought of as a combination of rather heterogeneous lexical material, but nevertheless one that can and should be described.
Dynamic structure of OPL.
Specific language processes occurring in the OPL are determined and, therefore, can be explained and described based on its structure.
The dynamic potential of the OP vocabulary is understood as the arrival/departure of lexemes from actual use and the ability to move in the internal space of the OP vocabulary.
The dynamic characteristics of OPL are different both for different zones and for smaller lexical associations - groups within each zone.
At the level of dividing the OPL into four lexical zones, the most stable is the “peripheral” (not actually OP) vocabulary, which is universal both in synchrony (mostly non-specific, capable of describing any sphere and form of implementation of the power relationship) and in diachrony (stable on the time axis, passes through successive power systems practically without changes, there are few borrowings, new formations, and irrelevant vocabulary is minimally represented in it compared to other OPL zones - mainly in the form of “living archaisms” [Panov, 1963, p. 10], that is, stylistically marked vocabulary).The stability of this vocabulary, its immutability over time, is determined, apparently, by the fact that it directly describes the universal role structure of power as such, in abstraction from the specific forms of embodiment of the power relationship.
In contrast to the stable composition of the non-EPL proper, the 2nd zone (ideological vocabulary) has the greatest dynamic potential: being focused on a specific power system with its ideology, it can almost completely become irrelevant if the political situation radically changes (with the exception of universal evaluative vocabulary). At the present stage, the current ideological vocabulary has not been formed as a system. A peculiarity of ideological vocabulary is its focus on the past due to its attachment to a specific historical era and power system. To classify ideological OPL, it is necessary to introduce a diachronic axis. The lack of formalization of the actual part of this zone of OP vocabulary in the current period is explained both by its specificity and by non-linguistic factors. The formation of the ideological vocabulary of a particular power system is facilitated by the presence of a strong supreme power with a purposeful ideological policy (cf. Sovietism), but at present this process is quite chaotic. Relationships between different zones in the composition
OPL manifests itself, in particular, in the fact that the vocabulary of a specific state-political (power) system, which during the existence of the latter was qualified as OPL proper, with the disappearance of the power system turns into ideological vocabulary (district committee, general secretary).
So, in fact, OPL and ideological vocabulary have opposite dynamic characteristics: universality and attachment to a specific power system, stable over time and great dynamic potential.
Thematic vocabulary, being terminological, is quite stable in terms of dynamic characteristics approaches the OPL proper, but is more stable over time.
As part of the OPL proper, the “constants” (i.e., vocabulary that passes through all political power systems) are closed groups with a high degree of internal systematicity, as a rule, including a limited list of words, reduced to several roots, correlating with the conceptual dominants of the OPL (“ power", "people", "nation")1. On the other hand, the OPL itself presents “weak links”, places with “variable” lexical content (groups with the greatest dynamic potential, capable of completely updating their composition in connection with fundamental political changes). These are mainly groups of lexical blocks “society” and “state”: nomina locis, “parties”, etc.
It can be argued that in this way, linguistic consciousness offers the lexical system certain priorities, shares linguistic ideas about power, personality and the individual’s relationship to power that are stable over time and changing, associated with a specific era, ideas about the forms of state power and stratification within society.
The question arises about where the lexical material of such groups goes and where it comes from. Isolation of “irrelevant” vocabulary in the OPL allows “” to solve it, but only partially. The very fact of the functioning of a word within the framework of a specific power system leaves in it a “trace” of this system in the form of a pragmatic meaning.
1 See Chapter 2 about the timeless nature of power, people, and nations, in contrast to the state and society that are not unique in time. tion of "engagement". It seems to us that a quantitative criterion should be taken into account here. Thus, the presence in the Russian language of a well-designed, structured system of “Sovietisms” represented by a large number of lexemes makes it possible to include former units of the OPL proper (at one time “first”, “adequate signs”) in the “ideological” vocabulary (city committee, general secretary). At the same time, the Shah, monarch, etc., unique in this regard, are classified as an irrelevant part of the OPL proper.
OPL zones are permeable both in terms of the departure of OP vocabulary from current use, and for the reverse process (transition from an irrelevant composition to an actual one). The current OP vocabulary can be formed in different ways: firstly, irrelevant vocabulary will be required within one zone in accordance with the political situation of the moment, secondly, the vocabulary of other zones can be transposed into the OP proper, the “involved vocabulary” systematically forms metaphorical transfers to denote phenomena OP of life. The first method is more inherent official language, political discourse, the second - near-political discourse (in particular, the language of the media).
The dynamic potential of the OPL is determined by its structure, and the dynamic changes that occur with a particular lexeme are largely determined by its status within the OPL.
OPL: parametric analysis.
The dynamic characteristics of each of the groups within the OPL in a certain way correlate with the linguistic ones themselves (identified by parametric analysis). Thus, stability of composition is usually inherent in closed groups with non-specific vocabulary, usually native. On the contrary, open groups with predominantly borrowed specific vocabulary have a variable composition. The most stable is the non-literate vocabulary, which includes predominantly predicate vocabulary; the maximum change in composition is observed in groups that include lexemes with a subject meaning. Noteworthy is the prevalence of nominalization (nouns formed from verbs) common to the entire OPL1.
It is obvious that these generalizations reflect only general patterns, and in reality the connection between the actual linguistic features and the dynamic potential of the OP vocabulary is more complex and should be subjected to more careful study.
OPL: "picture of the world".
OP vocabulary as a whole demonstrates the priority role of the concept of power, its structure as a way of thinking about the corresponding segment of reality. Linguistic consciousness represents the structure of power as stable, without connection with a specific regime. State power is included in a broader context: OP life appears in linguistic consciousness as an option for life in general. The dynamic sequence of power structures appears as knowledge and as language.
Meanings that are universal for the entire OPL, which can be verbalized in different ways, but are present one way or another in each of the OPL zones, are a projection of ideas about power onto the entire OPL. Thus, ideas about the actant structure of power, “hierarchy”, gradation of the subject of power, ideas about the rights and responsibilities of the subject of power are mandatory for the OP vocabulary. The object of the power relationship appears as a patient, as a supporter, as an opponent of the subject (a contender for power), common to the entire OPL is the importance of the vertical axis, partly the metaphor of power.
These general, universal ideas about the structure of the concept of power and OPL can be layered with various specifications, which, manifested at the lexical level, demonstrate native speakers’ ideas about a specific power system.
So, the universal way of representing power, including state power (in a “removed” form, presented in an inappropriate OPL) is supplemented in the minds of native speakers with ideas about a specific power system (cf. “picture of the world”,
1 For an analysis of nominalization in political discourse, see [Seriot, 1985]; [Krasukhin, 1991]. demonstrated by the “Soviet” vocabulary) and about its individual fragments (thematic vocabulary).
Let us make a few comments about the actual OP vocabulary itself and the “picture of the world” that it explicates, although the analysis of the actual OP vocabulary is a topic for a separate study and is not included in the immediate goals of this work.
It can be argued that the unformedness of modern OPL in a narrow sense, that is, the fundamental impossibility of compiling a more or less exhaustive list of words, the eclecticism and instability of its composition, corresponds to vague, unclear ideas about modern political reality in the “picture of the world” of native speakers. Such vagueness was facilitated by the destruction of the former strictly dichotomous opposition “us/foe”, the permanent change of value guidelines, signs of evaluation (communism or democracy, totalitarianism or sovereignty). In connection with such ambiguity of political guidelines, the “specific weight” of universal human values increases, the importance of moral guidelines increases, and, accordingly, the predominance of universal evaluative vocabulary increases. Thus, in the media addressed to the general population, to express, for example, a negative assessment, exactly the following vocabulary is used: militant, bureaucrat, terrorist, corruption, etc. Specific evaluative vocabulary (“biased”) is used only within the framework of private linguopolitical subsystems (communist press, extremist publications). We also note the tendency to blur the previously unambiguous assessment (patriot).
The current nomenclature of the names of government agencies and political realities demonstrates its foreignness and inorganicity for the collective consciousness. With the departure of the former strictly regulated and “developed” nomenclature of names into the corresponding (“Soviet”) “picture of the world,” the vacated space began to be filled within the framework of a general pro-Western orientation, but at the same time - chaotically and unsystematically (fragmentarily). Wed: mayor of Moscow and head of the administration of Mozhaisk, speaker in the Duma, governor in the absence of provinces; The mayor of the regional center should not report to the governor.
The absence of a system in the naming of phenomena of state-political life entails the absence in the collective consciousness of ideas about the architectonics of a specific power system: vertical and horizontal connections between specific power subjects are not traced.
The predominantly borrowed nature of current OP names, their “opacity”, and foreignness cause rejection among modern native speakers (in speech behavioral practice this is manifested, in particular, in the use of modifiers so-called, this, as they now say and under. Compare also: At first they feared God, then they were afraid of the authorities, and now who should we be afraid of? The prefect, or what, are we going to be afraid of? Why be afraid of him if he has such a stupid name. If you can say that, then you can steal. [AiF, No. 45, 1995 p. .8]). At the same time, such rejection of the “variable”, “transitory” vocabulary of a specific power vocabulary actualizes deep ideas about power (increasing role of orientation metaphor, increasing frequency of the word t power for “substitutive” designation of specific power structures, a large number of metaphorical “infusions” from other OPL zones, etc.).
So, the OPL itself is currently in its infancy, which applies to both the lexical system and the ideological system, the specific “picture of the world” that stands behind the OPL as the vocabulary of a specific power system. At the same time, the process of “linguisticization”, lexicalization of the required meanings occurs against the background and on the basis of clear ideas about the structure of power as such in the collective consciousness, arising from the system of the entire OPL as a whole.
List of scientific literature Zhdanova, Larisa Aleksandrovna, dissertation on the topic "Russian language"
1. Apresyan Yu.D. The image of a person according to language data: an attempt at a systemic description // Questions of linguistics. M.: "Science", 1995, No. 1 - P. 37-67.
2. Arutyunova N.D. “Proposition”, “fact”, “event” (experience of conceptual analysis) // Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Ser. lit. and language M., 1987, vol. 46, no. 6. - pp. 529-546. Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning. Logical-semantic problems. -M.: "Science", 1976. - 383 p.
3. Arutyunova N.D. Types of linguistic meanings: Assessment. Event. Fact. M.: "Science", 1988.- 338 p.
4. Arutyunova N.D. Anomalies and language (to the problem of the linguistic “picture of the world”) // Questions of linguistics. 1987 - No. 3. - P. 75-91.
5. Arutyunova N.D. Axiology in the mechanisms of life and language // Problems of structural linguistics, 1982. - M., 1984.
6. Arutyunova N.D. Language metaphor (syntax and vocabulary) // Linguistics and poetics. M.: "Science", 1979. - pp. 147-173.
7. Baranov A.N., Karaulov Yu.N. Russian political metaphor (materials for the dictionary). M.: Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1991. - 193 p.
8. Baranov A.N., Karaulov Yu.N. Russian political metaphor (dictionary experience). -M.: Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1993.
9. Vasiliev L.M. Types of predicate meanings // Studies in semantics. System-functional aspect and language teaching. Interuniversity. scientific Sat. Ufa, 1991.-S. 55-61.
10. Wierzbicka A. Speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 16: Linguistic pragmatics. M.; "Progress 1985. - 251-275.
11. Wierzbicka A. Comparison gradation - metaphor // Theory of metaphor. - M.: "Progress", 1991.-S. 133-152.
12. Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. M.: "Science", 1985. - 227s.g
13. Karaulov Yu.N. Linguistic construction and thesaurus of literary language. M.: "Science", 1981.- 366 p.
14. Komlev N.G. Components of the content structure of a word. M.: Publishing house. Moscow State University, 1969. - 192 p.
15. Conceptual analysis: methods, results, prospects: Abstracts of conference reports. M.: Institute of Foreign Languages of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1990. - 94 p.
16. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live // Language and modeling of social interaction. M.: "Progress", 1987. - pp. 126-172. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live // Theory of metaphor. -M.: "Science", 1990. - P. 387-415.
17. Logical analysis of language: Pragmatics and problems of intension. M.: "Science", 1987.
18. Logical analysis of language: Knowledge and understanding. M.: "Science", 1988. - 125 p. Logical analysis of language: Problems of intensional and pragmatic contexts. - M.: "Science", 1989. - 286 p.
19. Logical analysis of language: Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. M.: "Science", 1990.- 278 p.
20. Nikitina S.E. On the thesauran description of lexicographic terminology // National specificity of the language and its reflection in the normative dictionary. M.: "Science", 1988. -P.111-113.
21. New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 23: Cognitive aspects of language. M.: "Progress", 1988. - Issue. 23. - 315 p.
22. Panov M.V. On pronunciation styles // Development of the modern Russian language. -M., 1963.
23. Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 1926 Plisetskaya A.Yu. The concept of language in F. Saussure. Dipl. slave. department Russian language Moscow State University. -M., 1995.
24. The concept of fate in the context of different cultures. M.: "Science", 1994. - 320 p.
25. Pragmatics and semantics: Sat. scientific and analytical reviews / Rep. ed. Kuznetsov A.M. M.: USSR Academy of Sciences INION, 1991.
26. Pragmatics and problems of intension: Sat. scientific works. M.: USSR Academy of Sciences INION, 1988.-301 p.
27. Probst M.A. Thesaurus and information retrieval // NTI., Ser. 2. - 1979. - No. 9. p. 14-20.
28. Revzina O.G. System-functional approach to poetics // Problems of structural linguistics, 1985-1987. - M.: "Science", 1989. - P. 134-151. Rosenthal D.E., Telenkova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. -M.: "Enlightenment", 1985. - 399 p.
29. Information retrieval thesaurus. General provisions. Presentation form. GOST 18383-73. M., 1974. - 7 p.
30. Telia V.N. Connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative units. M.: "Science", 1986. - 141 p.
31. Telia V.N. Types of linguistic meanings. The associated meaning of a word in a language. M.: "Science", 1981.- 269 p.
32. The human factor in language: Language and the generation of speech. M.: "Science%". 1991. -237 p.
33. Cherneyko L.O. Gestalt structure of an abstract name // Philological Sciences, 1995. No. 4.-S. 73-83.
34. Chubaryan T.Yu. Semantics and pragmatics of speech genres of humor. Diss. Ph.D. fi-lol. nauk., M.: MSU, 1994. -221 p.
35. Roget P.M. Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. Toronto, 1947. - 705p. Seriot P. Analyze du discours politique sovietique. - Paris, Institute d'etudes slaves, 1985. -462p.1. Dictionaries.
36. Baranov O.S. Ideographic dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Publishing house. "Prometheus" Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after. V.I. Lenin, 1990. - 256 p.
37. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1981. - vol. 1-4. Lexical basis of the Russian language Morkovkin V.V. and others. - M.: "Russian language", 1984. - 1167 p.
38. Lexical minimums of the modern Russian language Morkovkin V.V. and others. -M.: "Russian Language", 1985. 608 p.
39. Dictionary of combinability of words of the Russian language Denisov P.N. and others. M.: "Russian language", 1983. - 686 p.
40. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. M.: " Soviet encyclopedia", 1983. Chernykh P.Ya. Historical and etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M.: "Russian language", 1993.-vol. 1,2.
41. Literature on the history of the issue.
42. Abbakumova G.A. On one of the aspects of nomination in the field of socio-political terminology (based on terms with the meaning of person) // Vest. Kyiv, univ. Methods of teaching foreign students. - Kyiv, 1986, issue. 10. -S. 7-10.
43. Akimova V.I. Socio-political vocabulary in the journalism of N.P. Ogarev. Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Alma-Ata, 1978. - 170 p.
44. Alekseev A.A. History of the word “citizen” in the 18th century // Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Ser. lit. and language M., 1972, vol. XXXI, issue 1. - P. 67-73.
45. Barannikov I.P. From observations of the development of the Russian language in recent years. The influence of war and revolution on the development of the Russian language. Uch. zap. Samara University, Vol. 2. Samara, 1919. - pp. 64-68.
46. Belaya A.S. Formation of the socio-political vocabulary of the Soviet era. Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Dnepropetrovsk, 1977. - 248 p.
47. Beloded I.K. Language and ideological struggle. Kyiv: “Naukova Dumka”, 1974. - 86 p. Belchikov Yu.A. Analysis of the language and style of journalistic works. - M.: MSU, 1962.-21s.
48. Belchikov Yu.A. Socio-political vocabulary in the works of V.G. Belinsky in the 40s. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M.: MSU, 1954. - 16 p. Belchikov Yu.A. Socio-political vocabulary of V.G. Belinsky. - M.: MSU, 1962. - 132 p.
49. Beus G. Whose field is that and will (notes on the language of revolution) // Communist Revolution, 1928, No. 7.
50. Bogoslovskaya O.I., Zhichaeva E.M. On the problem of the specificity of the newspaper journalistic word // Functional varieties of speech in the communicative aspect. - Perm, 1988.
51. Baudouin de Courtenay I.F. About the word “patriot” // Afterword to the 3rd edition of V.I. Dal’s “Explanatory Dictionary” / V.I. Dal. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. St. Petersburg, 1909.
52. Borovoy J1. New words // Krasnaya Nov, 1938, No. 2. P. 201-210. Bulavina M.A. Socio-political vocabulary in the journalism of revolutionary populists. Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. - M.: MOPI named after N.K. Krupskaya, 1987. -^ p.
53. Bulygin K.N. On the origin of the word “prince” // Scientific notes of the imp. Kazan University. Kazan, 1834, book 1. - P. 105 -133.
54. Buryachok A.A. The formation of the sawn foundation is sochalno poligichno1 vocabulary skhshch-noslav "yanskikh mov. - Kshv, 1983.
55. Veselitsky V.V. Antioch Cantemir and the development of the Russian literary language. -M.: "Science", 1974. 70 p.
56. Veselitsky V.V. Abstract vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the 18th century. XIX century - M.: "Science", 1972. -319 p.
57. Vinnik S.V. Sociolinguistic interpretation of political neologisms of American origin. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Minsk, 1986.- 18 p.
58. Vinogradov S.I. Discussions about the language of the first post-revolutionary years // Russian speech, 1977, M> 2.
59. Vinokur G.O. Revolutionary phraseology // Lef, 1923, No. 2. P. 104-118. Virkovskaya A.M. Socio-political vocabulary of V.I. Lenin’s book “What to do?” Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. - Minsk, 1961. - 242 p.
60. Volodina V.D. Selection of clichéd phrases for reading socio-political literature in German. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1981. - 21 p.
61. Goverdovsky V.I. Ideological connotation, speech practice and lexinography // Language and Society. Saratov, 1986. - pp. 58-69.
62. Golovanevsky A.JT. Metaphor as a means of creating vocabulary of socio-political content // Linguistic disciplines at the faculty of Russian language and literature. M., 1973. - P. 190-191.
63. Golovanevsky A.L. Socio-political vocabulary and phraseology of the Russian language 1900-1917 ir-"on the material of Bolshevik leaflets, printing and proletarian poetry). Dissertation for Candidate of Philological Sciences. M., 1974.
64. Golovanevsky A.L. Socio-political vocabulary as an object of description in educational dictionaries // Actual problems educational lexicography. Materials of the all-Union conference. M.: Institute of Russian Language named after. A.S. Pushkina, 1988. -S.: 29-30.
65. Golovanevsky A.L. The role of social ideological evaluative™ in the development of socio-political vocabulary and phraseology of the Russian language // Language and Society. Saratov: Publishing house. Sarat. University, 1989. - pp. 9-22.
66. Golovanevsky A.L. Semantic shifts in socio-political vocabulary // Russian linguistics, Vol. 2. Alma-Ata, 1973. - pp. 41-45.
67. Golovanevsky A.L. Social and ideological differentiation and evaluation of socio-political vocabulary of the Russian language // Questions of linguistics. M., 1987, No. 4. - P. 35-42.
68. Golovanevsky A.L. Social-evaluative vocabulary and phraseology of the Russian language at the beginning of the 20th century // Modern Russian language and issues of dialectology. M., 1972. -S. 190-217.
69. Golovanevsky A.L., Kondratov N.A. On the principles of studying socio-political vocabulary // Problems of lexicology and word formation of the Russian language.-M., 1982.-S, 3-15.
70. Danilenko V.P. Russian terminology. Experience of linguistic description. M.: "Science", 1977. - 246 p.
71. Danilov G.K. On the issue of Marxist linguistics // Literature and Marxism. -1928, book. VI.-S. 115-136.
72. Derzhavin K.N. The struggle of classes and parties in the language of the Great French Revolution // Language and literature. L., 1927, vol. II, issue. 1, pp. 1-62.
73. Deribas V.M. Stable verbal-noun phrases in socio-political texts // From the experience of teaching the Russian language to non-Russians, vol. 4. -M., 1968. P. 23-33.
74. Dianova G.N., Shimanskaya P.N. From the experience of working with foreign students on socio-political vocabulary // From the experience of teaching the Russian language to non-Russians, vol. 4. - M., 1968.
75. Dubrovchenko P.M., Khripun V.N. Critical analysis of modern bourgeois political vocabulary // Philosophy and language. Kyiv, 1987. - pp. 79-86.
76. Dubyago A.I. Socio-political and scientific text “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” by N.G. Chernyshevsky. Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. -D., 1956.-391 p.
77. On the rumors about the corruption of the language // Bulletin of Literature, 1920, No. 3 (15).
78. Kaida L.G. The effectiveness of journalistic text / Ed. Zasurskbgo Ya.M. - M.: MSU, 1989. 182 p.
79. Kapralova S.G. Lexico-semantic groups as part of socio-political vocabulary // Functional and semantic aspects of the study of vocabulary. -Kuibyshev, 1985. P. 91-97.
80. Kogotkova T.S. From the history of the formation of socio-political vocabulary (based on materials from the last decades of the 19th century) // Research on Russian terminology. M.: "Science", 1971. P. 114-165.
81. Krysin L.P. Language and social reality // Russian language at school, 1967, No. 3. pp. 3-9.
82. Kryuchkova T.B. On the question of the polysemy of “ideologically related” vocabulary // Questions of linguistics. M., 1981, No. 2. - P.28-30.
83. Kryuchkova T.B. On the presentation of socio-political vocabulary and terminology in explanatory dictionaries// Sociolinguistic studies of the terminology of the peoples of the USSR. M., 1988.
84. Kryuchkova T.B. Features of the formation and development of socio-political vocabulary and terminology. M.: "Science", 1989. - 152 p.
85. Kryuchkova T.B. Language and ideology. On the issue of reflection of ideology in language. Author's abstract. diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1976.
86. Leichik V.M. Features of the terminology of social sciences and the scope of its use // Language and style of scientific presentation. M., 1983.
87. Maksimova M.K. On the issue of the development of socio-economic terminology of the 1st half of the 19th century // Scientific notes of Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after. A.I. Herzen. L.: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, t. 173, 1958.-P. 109-132.
88. Maksimova M.K. On the history of socio-political vocabulary based on materials from Kirillov’s Pocket Dictionary of Foreign Words // Uch. zap. LGPI named after. Herzen, vol. 122, 1956.
89. Marov V.N., Marova N.D. Ideological component of the text // Text-forming properties of linguistic units. Alma-Ata, 1977.
90. Matveev B.I. Studying the texts of V.I. Lenin’s works // From the experience of teaching the Russian language to non-Russians. Vol. 4. M., 1968.
91. Mednikova E.M. Ideological component of word meanings in dictionary and non-dictionary texts // Methodological problems of social linguistics. M.: MSU, 1986.-S. 22-33.
92. Melerovich A.I. Socio-political vocabulary in "News about Russia". Diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Yaroslavl, 1964.
93. Melnik V.M. From the experience of working on word combinations in socio-political speech // Questions of linguistics, No. 6, 1965. pp. 74-76.
94. Novitskaya N.V. Socio-political vocabulary and phraseology of N.A. Nekrasov. Riga, 1953.
95. Ne ChsChrt A. On the question of the subject and basic concepts of Marxist-Leninist sociolinguistics // Current problems of linguistics of the GDR. Language ideology - society. - M., 1979. - P. 61-63.
96. Nosov Yu.M. Linguistic means of propaganda in the system of methods and techniques of indoctrination of American military personnel. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M.: MSU, 1985. - 18 p.
97. Polivanov E.D. Revolution and literary languages of the USSR // Revolutionary East, 1927, No. 1.
98. Polivanov E.D. Russian language of today // Literature and Marxism, book. IV, 1928.-S. 167-180.
99. Polukarova E.A. Vocabulary and phraseology of literary critical articles by N.L. Dobrolyubov “Dark People” and “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” Abstract diss. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. L., 1953. - 16 p.
100. Pribylovsky V. Dictionary of new political parties and organizations of Russia. -M.: "Panorama", 1993. 199 p.
101. Protchenko I.F. Socio-political vocabulary of the Soviet era / Russian language. in national school, 1965, No. 3.
102. Radchenko A.A. New phenomena in the vocabulary of modern newspaper journalism. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M.: UDN im. Patrice Lumubma, 1975. - 31 p. Rosenthal D.E. Current issues in studying the newspaper language // Bulletin of Moscow State University, Journalism, 1975.
103. Rosenthal D.E., Solganik G.Ya. Study of the language and style of the media and propaganda // Bulletin of Moscow State University, Journalism, 1977, No. 1. P. 6Y-75. Rotunskaya M.S. Thematic groups of socially marked vocabulary in the English language // P.22-32.
104. Russian language and Soviet society. Vocabulary of the modern Russian literary language I.P.Muchnik, M.V.Panov, D.I.Shmelev and others. M.: "Nauka", 1968. - 184 p.
105. Samkova V.M. From the history of socio-political vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the 40-60s. 19th century (based on the works of A.I. Herzen). Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. JL: Leningrad State University, 1955. - 15 p.
106. Selishchev A.M. Expressiveness and imagery of the language of the revolutionary era // Native language at school, 1927, No. 3. P. 72-84.
107. Selishchev A.M. Revolution and language // On the path to pedagogical self-education. -M., 1925.-S. 207-217.
108. Selishchev A.M. Review of Barannikov, 1919. // Kazan Bibliophile, 1921, No. 1.- P. 66-70.
109. Sivko O.A. “Ideologized” vocabulary and its features // Lexical and grammatical semantics. Novosibirsk, 1986.
110. Dictionary of the language of V.I. Lenin. Project. M.: USSR Academy of Sciences, 1971. - 66 p.
111. Modern ideological struggle and problems of language / Rep. ed. Desheriev Yu.D.-M.: "Science", 1984. -240 p.
112. Solganik G.Ya. Newspaper vocabulary. Functional aspect. M.: "Higher School", 1981. - 112 p.
113. Solganik G.Ya. Vocabulary of a modern newspaper // in the book: Language and style., 1980. Solganik G.Ya. On the peculiarities of the language of the newspaper // Russian. language abroad, 1988, No. 5.- P. 35-38.
114. Solonino M.A. On the study of the language of the revolutionary era // Russian language in the Soviet school, 1929, No. 4. P. 42-47.
115. Stepanova E.M. Lexico-semantic features of socio-political vocabulary in journalistic texts // Research on the stylistics of artistic speech. Alma-Ata, 1985. - pp. 145-153.
116. Stepanova E.M. Educational dictionary of verbal combinability of a socio-political nature. M.: MSU, 1963.
117. Strizhenko A.A., Rogozina I.V. Political vocabulary of the English-language press ( tutorial according to a special course). Barnaul, 1983.
118. Timoshenko N.L. Vocabulary of Soviet political treaties 1917-1985: functional-stylistic analysis. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. - Kyiv, 1987.
119. Tosovic B. The language of perestroika and its reflection in the Yugoslav media // Russian. language abroad, 1988, No. 4. P. 49-53.
120. Treskova S.I. Terminology in the field of mass communication // Sociolinguistic studies of the terminology of the peoples of the USSR. M., 1988. - pp. 49-59. Trunev N.V. Revolution and language // Siberian Lights. - Novosibirsk, 1928, book. 4. - pp. 165-181.
121. Turkin V.N. To the study of social terms // Questions of linguistics, 1975, No. 2. pp. 62-67.
122. Uspensky L.V. Language of revolution // Five arts. L., 1928.
123. The functioning of language as a means of ideological influence (collection of scientific works). Krasnodar: KubGU, 1988. - 111 p.
124. Chernykh P.Ya. 1. Modern trends in linguistics. 2. Russian language and revolution. Irkutsk, 1929. - 64 p.
125. Chernykh P.Ya. About new words // Ethnographic Bulletin Irkutsk, 1923, No. 3. Shansky A.M. Words born of October. - M., 1980.
126. Shvedova N.Yu. Socio-political vocabulary and phraseology in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by A.N. Radishchev // Materials and research, according to IR-LA, vol. II. M.-L., 1951. - P. 5-51.
127. Schmidt V. The relationship between language and politics as a subject for studying the social effectiveness of language from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism // Current problems of linguistics of the GDR. - M., 1979.
128. Shnaidrova G. Issues of selection and semantization of socio-political vocabulary for teachers of the Russian language in the Czech non-philological audience. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1984. - 24 p.
129. Shor E.N. On the history of French socio-political vocabulary. Abstract of dissertation. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1954.
130. Epstein M.N. Ideology and language (building a model and understanding discourse) // Questions of linguistics, 1991, No. 6. P. 19-33.
131. Newspaper language. Practical guide and reference manual for newspaper workers / Ed. Kondakova N.I. M.-L., 1941. - 464 p.
The socio-political vocabulary is considered as part of the journalistic style. Therefore, it is quite susceptible to semantic changes that follow political and social movements in the state.
general information
Each new stage of historical development leads to the fact that the use of socio-political vocabulary changes. The most striking example of this is the October Revolution and the events preceding it. Each such turn leads to a linguistic restructuring of various activities. The language of the socio-political sphere is, first of all, the promotion of ideas and views. Its appearance and existence is due to the situation that developed in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. Then there were more than 150 different political parties, structures, organizations, trends and trends. Dissatisfaction with the then existing order, disunity, social disorder, and the inability of the authorities to restore order led to a situation that A. M. Selishchev called “energetic linguistic activity.” The essence of this phenomenon was that various segments of the population, political parties and individuals sought to express their attitude to the events of that time, as well as discuss issues that were important to them. This contributed to the actualization and consolidation of new, previously unused words and their combinations. For example, democratic freedom and rights, the names of political parties, the system of choosing government, and so on. At that time, three blocs of parties dominated: the left, the center and the right. It is from them that the socio-political vocabulary of the Russian language largely depends.
Now this area is freer and more informal; it is enough to have access to the Internet - and a person opens up great opportunity to enter into discourse. Although, in order to join a certain group of people with some common position, you need to have a fairly solid stock of knowledge.
What task is being performed
Socio-political vocabulary plays a significant role in the life of society. At the same time, researchers face a number of tasks when studying this area:
- Insufficient elaboration of this issue in works devoted to terminology.
- Poor study of the functional and semasiological aspects.
- Identification and subsequent systematization of language vocabulary.
Detailed studies of these aspects make it possible to obtain and enrich an understanding of the lexical composition of the groups under consideration. These actions are important not only in learning vocabulary, but also for conducting diachronic analysis. In this case, the study of issues is resolved in two aspects:
- Status and properties of socio-political vocabulary as an integral subsystem of language.
- Study of specific thematic and semantic groups.
The easiest thing to do is to compile a dictionary of the political sphere. But this raises the problem of a comprehensive description of the semantic structure of lexemes and the identification of everyday specifics. How is it resolved? For this purpose, a corpus of lexical units is used, extracted from sources that directly record real features functioning of the units of interest. These include documents of political parties and public organizations. The main attention is paid to their programs, appeals, appeals, and open letters. If we add to them verbatim reports on the speeches of deputies in the State Duma, memoirs of political figures, memoirs, periodicals and some other literature, then you can get a very high-quality idea of \u200b\u200bthe vocabulary.
What's wrong here? And how to classify?
The study of socio-political vocabulary, which is based solely on material extracted from dictionaries, cannot be considered as absolutely reliable. The reason for this, according to some scholars, lies in the very nature of the source, which is simply a product of lexicographic modeling of the language system. That is, in this case a situation of “double subjectivism” arises. It affects the scientific significance of the research carried out. In addition, dictionaries, like the rest of language, are not without bias. The most common points of criticism are the content of a particular point of view and the presentation of a particular understanding. Therefore, most often attention is paid to words and compound names that are used to serve the sphere of socio-political life. There are quite a few classifications of socio-political vocabulary. Which one you should choose depends on your goals. In this article we will consider the following thematic groups:
- Forms of social structure.
- Subjects of supreme state power.
- Forms of organization of the country.
In this case, thirty-four thematic subgroups are additionally identified. As a small list, we can cite the names and contents of open letters and appeals, legislative documents, political events and actions.
About functional features
Speaking about what socio-political vocabulary and phraseology is, it is simply impossible to ignore the role it plays. In this case, contextual deterministic semantic ambivalence appears:
- Actualization of negative connotative semes in the structures of initially neutral lexemes. For example, " United Russia- a party of swindlers and thieves." The initially neutral designation acquired a clearly expressed negative connotation.
- Actualization of positive connotative microcomponents of initially neutral lexemes. For example, the phrase “United Russia” in the program of this party.
Terminology and vocabulary of the socio-political sphere are two separate, but at the same time closely interconnected, dynamically developing systems. Their main functional features are:
- Rethinking existing compound non-terminological names. For example, Slavophiles are against the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaiming multinationality, but relying on the Russian ethnos.
- Functioning of a number of items in specific conditions. As an example, we can cite quasi-synonymous terms. These units are characterized by over-actualization of initially existing denotative microcomponents. As an alternative, one can consider the distribution of terms in their original form or with some expansion and specification. In the first case, this is used when something needs to be over-actualized. For example: Putin is the president. For expansion and specification, a phrase like: head of state of the Russian Federation is suitable. These are examples of socio-political vocabulary.
What else?
Continuing the last list it should be noted:
- The formation of new colorful non-terminological names of occasional origin, which are based on the combination of certain parts of speech. For example: Putin the crab.
- The fixed form of the singular as an indicator of the well-known personality of the leader of the country.
- Low semantic intercomponent connection of individual names of a composite nature.
- Bookishness and stylistic sublimity of names. It arises as a result of the contextual environment. For example: All-Russian autocrat.
- A combination of quasi-synonymous terms in one stable and indivisible name. For example: sovereign-emperor.
- The appearance and use of metaphorical compounds of non-terminological names of occasional origin (for example, the supreme master over the entire Russian land).
- Few, but striking examples of the use of lexemes in conditions of an artificially created discrepancy between semantic-stylistic characteristics and context, make it possible to actualize the semes of irony within the framework of the connotative macro-component of meanings. As an example, we can cite such an anachronism as the Tsar-Father.
To summarize, we can say that the widespread use of quasi-synonymous words during the performance of functional tasks is characteristic. The considered socio-political vocabulary, examples of which were given, demonstrated the presence of a developed system of connections. In addition, there are terminological polysemy and hyperogynyms. These are the functions of socio-political vocabulary that are highlighted when considering it.
What processes does this represent?
And is it possible to draw parallels with modern times? The use of socio-political vocabulary is always the result of dissatisfaction with certain moments or even crisis phenomena in the state. The emergence and deepening of contradictions in the socio-economic and socio-political spheres, the emergence of problems, changes in the life of the country allows us to judge the prospects. An example is the situation at the beginning of the twentieth century. Then a whole series of shocks and crises literally layered, creating a stormy hodgepodge and good soil for the social explosion that occurred in 1917. Additionally, one can recall the conditions in which it collapsed Soviet Union(riots, massacres and even something similar to genocide in the Central Asian republics). From a relatively recent point, we can mention the situation on Bolotnaya Square, when it seemed to many that the revolution would occur due to reaching the boiling point. That is, any radicalization of the words of socio-political vocabulary, examples of which can be seen even now, leads to an aggravation of the situation. This is clearly reflected in the socio-political vocabulary.
Various groups and segments of the population
This already applies to a greater extent to specific moments and features. First of all, we should remember the ideologically determined selection of certain linguistic means by members of different parties. After all, correctly conveying the promoted information to potential supporters means gaining additional political power. And strengthen your own position. In this case, you have to be guided by two factors:
- Ideological guidelines of a particular party.
- Composition of the potential electorate.
For example, nationalist right-wing movements rely on the use of socio-political lexemes and terms that are of original Russian origin. The left gives preference to new and borrowed ones. Moreover, in practice, they can use the same words, but only with a certain variability and different semantic content. In other words, it may have diametrically opposite meanings in the documentation of different parties. In addition, new terms and lexemes are constantly formed by active elements. This happens through the following processes:
- Rethinking existing names.
- Implementation of a certain language policy by a specific political force.
- Updating previously borrowed names.
At the same time, determinologization of nominative specialization by lexemes is often observed. The reason for such phenomena is the following:
- Connotative meanings are updated due to the influence of the semantic background of the semantic environment.
- Nominative reorientation is carried out. This means that new conceptual content begins to be put into the lexeme.
But at the same time, socio-political terminology is quite characterized by stability and stability, because due to its specificity, it is formed quite slowly.
The situation in other countries
Throughout the article, the main attention was paid to the situation within the Russian Federation. Let's see how things are going with this in other countries. And English socio-political vocabulary will be chosen as the object of study. It has undergone numerous qualitative and quantitative changes over the past few decades. They were caused by the very rapid development of society. At the same time, there is a clear tendency towards more complex forms and components. Thus, modern socio-political vocabulary of the English language is based on the formation of new affixes, which allows experimenting with methods of word formation. Moreover, their appearance and design reveals the presence of close relationships between different levels of language. This applies to the greatest extent to morphemic and lexical. Bifunctionality is quite common in this case. The essence of this phenomenon is that there are units that are both lexemes and affixes. This phenomenon, as well as a large number of intermediate elements, indicates that there is no clear boundary between them. Thus, neologisms create the necessary conditions for the formation of derivational elements. These, in turn, are used to create new lexical solutions. And so on. At the same time, there is a tendency for the share of complex words to increase. It is from them that the largest group of lexical decisions is formed. In the process of formation of a large number of semantic neologisms, several mechanisms take part, each of which complicates the internal form in its own way.
Periodicals and fiction
Socio-political lexemes retain their status as a special name, but at the same time they perform a pragmatic, axiological and aesthetic function. Moreover, the latter is more characteristic of fiction. The systematic nature of the identified and used lexical sets is manifested in numerous multi-aspect and multi-level relationships. Particular attention should be paid to:
- A developed and numerous system of quasi-antonymic connections, when opposing views are objectified in language.
- Underrepresented but striking terminological polysemy.
- A developed system of quasi-synonymous connections, which are a product of the multidimensionality of the socio-political names used.
Conclusion
So we looked at examples of socio-political vocabulary and phraseology, how they are formed, studied by specialists, and compared the Russian and English languages. In this case, two important points should finally be highlighted: words and their use can be used as an indicator of the development and course of processes. Secondly, the main criteria for conducting the study are developed, the permissible limits of application are justified and clarified, and the issues of the relationship between various units are considered.
The content of political speech determines the use of special group words (as well as phraseological units, compound names) - political vocabulary (parliament, deputy, head of administration, vote, voter, mayor, opposition, decree, etc.). It is necessary to distinguish between political vocabulary and political science terminology. Political science terminology, like any terminology, is fully known only to specialists; it does not belong to commonly used vocabulary and is used only in scientific and other texts aimed at specialists. Political vocabulary is a thematic combination of commonly used words that should be understandable to everyone (the absolute majority of citizens).
Political vocabulary is constantly enriched by political science terminology: for example, a decade and a half ago, words and compound names such as consensus, subject of the Federation, impeachment were understandable only to specialists, but now they have become generally known, that is, the term has become despecialized. On the other hand, many words and expressions commonly used in the Soviet era (executive committee, councils, party committee, drummer of communist labor) are already turning into special terms of political history. At the same time, some words that in the Soviet era seemed associated only with the distant past of our country or with political system other countries (governor, State Duma, department, mayor). Therefore, the boundaries between political vocabulary and political scientific terminology, between political neologisms and political archaisms are quite arbitrary: we are not always able to accurately determine the line at which a word becomes commonly used or ceases to be so, turns into an archaism, or again turns out to be completely modern.
In political speech, a particular word can acquire special semantic connotations; Often the leading, main (least dependent on the context, most frequent) meaning is the one that is marked in dictionaries as secondary or not recorded at all. For example, in modern Russian political speech, an agrarian is primarily a member of the agrarian faction in the State Duma (or a supporter of this faction), and not a “specialist on the agrarian issue” (this meaning is presented as the only one in the four-volume academic “Dictionary of the Russian Language” in 1981 ). The words right and left in modern political texts characterize primarily political views, and supporters of a market liberal economy during the period of “perestroika” were considered leftists, and in the last decade of the last century they began to be called rightists; Accordingly, their political antipodes - adherents of communist ideology - were first called right in our country, but over time, in accordance with international practice, they began to be called left. Another example is the adjectives red, brown, pink and green, which in modern Russian political discourse usually characterize a person's political beliefs, rather than their preferred color. Accordingly, during the Civil War in Russia, the main “color” opposition was the opposition between whites and reds.
In totalitarian states, attempts are often made to directly or indirectly regulate the use of certain words and expressions. For example, in the Russian-Soviet language, the political allies of the USSR were called countries of people's democracy, states of the world socialist system, or socialist commonwealth (there were some semantic differences between these designations). Such word usage is often interpreted as a manifestation of “newspeak”, a means of creating some kind of illusory reality (according to George Orwell). However, if desired, elements of “newspeak” can also be found in countries considered to be models of democracy.