Scholarly record
PEJORATION REPRESENTATION MEANS IN MODERN RUSSIAN MEDIA TEXTS
Abstract
The paper presents the results of a study of pejoration as a frequency type of evaluative statements in contemporary Russian media discourse. It is stated that the language means for expressing pejorative meanings have different level characteristics: they are heterogeneous, can express a different degree or intensity of negativity, and form a semantic field of pejorativity in the Russian language. In this work, the following research methods were used: descriptive analysis, continuous sampling, contextual analysis and structural-component analysis. The descriptive-analytical method made it possible to obtain a clear idea of the linguistic subject under study, develop a descriptive sequence and systematize the linguistic material. The contextual analysis allowed us to distinguish shades of meaning in the semantic structure of pejorative linguistic means. The structural-component analysis provided an opportunity to consider the constituent parts of pejoratives. A complex analysis of the structure of the semantic-functional pejorative field of modern Russian media texts indicates that the publications most often use the near and far pejoration periphery (pejoratives-reinterpretations, zootropes and contextually determined means of pejoration), lexical units of the center of the pejorativity field, possessing objective denotative pejorative meanings outside the context, are characterized by more limited functioning. Pejorative meanings are most often created on the basis of word combinations involving only one pejorative component as well as combinations with an adverb or an adjective as enhancers of pejorativity. Very common are verbs that have in their denotative meaning destructive semantics, derivatives with negative affixes or occasional pejoratives. The highest percentage is recorded in the use of contextually determined pejorative means, primarily, zootropes. In Russian media texts, zootropes may include a pejorative component, and their evaluative character is clearly traced, or they are used with meliorative words and defined only in the context. An analysis of factual material has shown that pejorative means are the dominant method for meaning-making, actualizing the evaluative meaning and strengthening the expressiveness in general and at the level of a text fragment. Based on such characteristics as information richness, stability and connotativity, the pejoratives differentiated by us express not only the authors position and evaluation but also make the text multidimensional in semantic terms, expressive and meaningful, contribute to the increment of additional communicative shades and are productively used as a base element of evaluative statements in contemporary Russian media discourse.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References15
Arutyunova N.D. Language and the world of man. Moscow: “Yazyki Russkoy Kultury” Publ., 1999. 896 p.
Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. Мoscow: KomKniga Publ., 2007. 576 p.
Kremich I. I. Pejoratives–reinterpretations in the modern German language: Cand. Sci. (Philology) thesis. Moscow, 1987. 238 p.
Safonova L.V. On the linguistic essence of pejorativity in language. Theory and methods of lexicological research: Col. papers. Leningrad: LSPI n.a. A.I. Herzen 1985. pp. 25–58.
Shibaeva N.P. On the functional-semantic field of pejorativity. Linguistic structures of the text: Col. papers. Мoscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1988. pp. 151– 155.
Telia V.N. Expressiveness as a manifestation of the subjective factor in language and its pragmatic orientation. The human factor in language: Language mechanisms of expressiveness. Moscow, 1991. pp. 5–35.
Lukyanova N.A. Expressive vocabulary of colloquial use (problems of semantics). Мoscow: Nauka Publ., 1986. 232 p.
Kovalenko E.V. Language actualization of pejorative evaluations: as exemplified in the English language. Cand. Sci. (Philology) thesis. Barnaul, 2006. 190 p.
Dolzhikova A., Kurilenko V., Biryukova Yu., Rumyantseva N., Kulikova E., Tumakova E.Linguodidactic profiling in teaching Russian as a foreign language to labour migrants. Journal of International Migration & Integration. Springer. 2017. pp.1- 10. Available online https://link.springer.com/epdf/DOI: 10.1007/s12134-017-0531 3?author_access_token=YFEVTmNbGSlxT7NBBBVwfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY6 CqlI5HA9g3uA6q9Ih9dizkRaZokZSQCxhyxrLtUsvmNSIhtUbh4SidB3XikOUMobieR 27jiIRuLM-skDd9_VY-i4poUY9lw53owD9Q23BZw%3D%3D
Turetskova I.V. Language means of pejorative manifestations in the dictionary and in the text (a case study of German pejorative names characterizing a person): Extended abstract of Cand. Sci. (Philology) thesis. Samara: Volga State Social-Humanitarian Academy, 2011. 19 p.
Blackmore D. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 212 p.
Chilton, P. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2004. 240 p.
Hacker K. L. Political Linguistic Discourse Analysis. The Theory and Practice of Political Communication Research. New-York: State University of New York Press, 1996. 28–55.
Mineeva Z. I. Russian zootropes in the National Corpus of the Russian language. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk SU Publ., 2014. 96 p.
Karasik V.I. Language of social status. Institute of Linguistics RAS, Volgograd SPI, 1992. 330 p.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
