The main approaches to socio-political vocabulary study in modern linguistics

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

The main approaches to socio-political vocabulary study in modern linguistics

Shayner H.I., Lviv Polytechnic National University,

Rak N.V., Lviv Polytechnic National University, Senkovych O.R., Lviv Polytechnic National University

Introduction

Linguists are unanimous in assessing the specificity of socio-political vocabulary, distinguishing it from other layers of language, and determining its lexical-semantic focus. Usually, these include words that have a direct relationship with the state-administrative system of management, politics and economy, and the processes of social development.

N.M. Khoma singles out the following groups of sociopolitical vocabulary:

naming socio-historical categories and concepts;

name of the state organization;

name of the administrative system;

names related to legislation, the judicial system;

political names;

the name of the military case;

the name of the sphere of culture and education;

religious vocabulary [1, p. 49].

Socio-political vocabulary is specific, unlike terms, has a wider scope of application, and is generally used. Their foreign-language origin, belonging to the international vocabulary brings them together with the terms. This identity sometimes confuses all but native speakers and linguists. Undoubtedly, socio-political vocabulary serves economic study, political science, philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, history and other social and humanitarian sciences, and they can be conditionally considered as terms of these fields. Also, socio-political vocabulary in a certain period originates as neologisms, enters a wide circulation, then, as it leaves the linguistic scene, acquires the status of historicisms. In terms of scope and scope of application, socio-political vocabulary is the language of a certain circle of speakers. It is the common property of all members of society, which everyone uses according to their linguistic abilities and needs. Strengthening the positions of this vocabulary in the national language, along with the spheres of education and science, is facilitated by the means of mass information. Words as designations of new concepts and phenomena enter the vocabulary through the language of print and periodicals. With the help of socio-political vocabulary, the state policy and economic course of the country is 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 as means of journalistic style, therefore, an object of linguistics.

political scientist vocabulary

The main part. Thus, the wide sphere of distribution of sociopolitical vocabulary, the activity of its use sharply distinguishes it from the terms of internationalism. It is this property (prevalence and belonging to the active vocabulary) that largely contributes to the pollution of the language. Let's consider the likely areas of implementation of political terminology. Socio-political vocabulary occupies huge layers of language and has no less wide functional powers. Its development is inextricably linked with the historical and political stages of the formation of society, various socio-economic situations of the country, with the formation and improvement of artistic and journalistic literature, mass media. The strengthening of the function of socio-political vocabulary and the activity of its use are especially growing thanks to written sources, including in the mass media.

Each phase in social development leaves its mark on the history of language. In a certain formation, other words very quickly turn into historicisms. Other "long-timers", which have 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 according to the word formation rules of the recipient language or are subject to its sound-letter system. It is difficult to predict the foreign nature of these words without a preliminary etymological analysis.

Socially significant changes, news bring new concepts and ideas into life. A nation with a clearly developed written culture timely finds names for them in its native language or adapts foreign language expressions to the system of the recipient language. Peoples with an unformed national alphabet and vocabulary borrowed by orthography undergo only minor changes. Therefore, the preservation of the original version of writing and pronunciation of foreign words is a sign of the lack of formation of the national graphic (orthographic) system of the recipient language. Neither a historically formed language nor a language that is 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 so full of borrowed vocabulary. Foreign language vocabulary is accepted without changes in languages that use borrowed graphics (orthography). Since they preserve the written version of the original source, then these written norms are fixed both in pronunciation and in reading, and become widely distributed [2, p. 91].

New words are spread primarily by mass media. The popularization of these words and their acquisition of a national character are directly related to the development of periodicals. An important issue in the definition of political terms is the question of determining the criteria for the allocation of a given layer of terms. In this, researchers, defining the term "political vocabulary", adhere to two main approaches. One group of scientists (Felber H., 31. Gairns R) define this term by listing the thematic groups included in this subsystem. For example, according to L. Jeffries, the group of political terminology includes: "socio-political terminology, names of various party, state, public organizations and institutions, social realities and life phenomena of different countries, as well as political idioms of the language of mass communication and political jargonisms" [3, p. 22]. The second group of researchers prefers a more formalized definition of a single term, relying on some general semantic features that characterize the units included in the political terminology, thereby defining the boundaries of this subsystem (L. Tomilenko, N. Khoma). So, in particular, D. Crystal defines political terminology quite narrowly as "purely scientific terms (terms of social and political sciences), professionalisms and general literary words and expressions, nomenclature units, proper names, emotionally colored lexical units" [4, p. 43].

A different opinion is held by H. Felber, who in his dissertation research understands political terminology as "a set of words and phrases containing a semantic component related to state and international politics and the political life of society." Accordingly, the researcher defines politics as "the activity of state bodies, public forces and individuals, related to the desire for power, its acquisition, retention and use, as well as influence on power" [5, p. 19].

Thus, political terminology is perceived by researchers in a narrow and broad sense. Within the framework of this study, we are inclined to a broad understanding of the term "political terminology", which allows us to identify a much larger number of thematic groups for analysis. Accordingly, we understand the set of words and phrases in which the social structure of society, the political system, and ways of organizing the social and political life of the country in which the language functions, as well as of other countries, are particularly clearly reflected by the selected term.

Another important issue when considering political terminology is the question of its relationship with political (sociopolitical) terminology. In this case, we can distinguish three main approaches. In particular, representatives of the first approach (Sager J.C.) equate the concepts of political vocabulary and political terminology. Another group of researchers (for example, Van Dijk T.A., Zgusta L and others) distinguish these concepts, excluding political terminology from the socio-political vocabulary. Thus, these researchers note that political terminology is part of the terminology of social sciences, as a result, it and political vocabulary represent two independent subsystems that include a certain number of lexical units that coincide in terms of expression, but differ significantly from each other, as in semantics , and functionally. In addition, each of these subsystems contains a large number of lexical units that do not coincide either in terms of expression or in terms of content [6, p.11].

In addition, there is a third approach, according to which political terminology is part of the political vocabulary. Representatives of this approach are inclined to think that political terminology is characterized not only by universal availability, ambiguity, determined by extralinguistic factors, emotional coloring of many units, the presence of synonyms/antonyms in many units, developed lexical connectivity, but also by terminology, systematicity, correlation with a certain ambiguity of many lexemes [7, p. 19]. This allows us to put political terminology in a borderline position between general literary vocabulary and terminology [7, p. 19].

According to P. Kosiv, political terminology is "special lexical units that denote certain specific concepts in the generally accepted system of political concepts." In addition, the researcher emphasizes the lack of stability of political terminology, as some of it is involved in the process of determinization. Accordingly, the researcher concludes that political terms are not perceived as alien, but on the contrary, interpenetrating into the general literary vocabulary, become generally accessible language units [2, p. 42].

This is often explained by the widespread use of political terminology in modern mass media. Therefore, within the scope of this study, we are inclined to the opinion of the last group and believe that political terminology is a part of political vocabulary. In addition, following P. Kosiv, we define political terms as special lexical units denoting certain specific concepts in the generally accepted system of political concepts. In addition to the most used part of political terminology, political vocabulary includes a number of other lexical units. Their number depends on the approach used. For example, some researchers analyze political vocabulary from the point of view of semantic fields. Accordingly, they highlight the core of this layer of vocabulary. For example, according to Lakoff G, socio-political terminology and book vocabulary should be included as core components of political vocabulary. Kageura K., in turn, refers to the core words or word combinations, the meaning of which includes the "political", "social, public" component, the presence of which is determined using dictionary definitions [8; 45].

As for the periphery of the field of political vocabulary, for example, Kageura K. considers its composition quite widely, including lexical units from the fields of diplomacy, economy, and culture, which are used to characterize state policy in one or another area. The policy of the state can be applied to a large number of spheres of the social life of society, since it affects all areas of human activity [8, p. 8].

Rey A., in turn, refers to political vocabulary:

commonly used political lexical units;

political terms - words or phrases that accurately and unambiguously name a concept and its relationship with other concepts within the limits of a special sphere [9, p. 9];

political terms that are occasionally used;

precise vocabulary, including proper names, geographical names and numerals;

various political cliches and cliches that are characteristic of both journalistic and official-business functional styles [9, p. 9].

The scientist also identifies four types of lexical units in the political vocabulary:

actually political vocabulary, in the narrow sense;

ideological vocabulary, which is a marker of the political position of the sender of the message;

thematic vocabulary, within which the sphere of political life of society is indicated;

inappropriate political vocabulary that reflects political realities, but does not contain the direct meaning of words and expressions [9, p. 12].

Tomilenko L. in his dissertation study refers to the core of political vocabulary:

the name of the political organization,

authorities,

political parties,

social and political currents,

political organizations, etc.

As for the periphery, according to the researcher, it includes:

words and phrases that are often used in texts of political content, but have a broader meaning associated with several different spheres of activity (vote, analyst, speech writer);

words and phrases denoting spheres related to politics: finance, economy, jurisprudence, state security and state defense, etc. (justice, budget, deportation).

Having analyzed the selected material, Tomilenko L. suggests dividing the political vocabulary into two large groups:

vocabulary of the field of domestic policy;

vocabulary of the field of foreign and international policy [10, p. 15].

In addition, the author presents the developed thematic classification on the example of political vocabulary, noting that the same word can be assigned to several headings due to its ambiguity. Thus, the researcher identifies 6 thematic groups:

names of persons;

names reflecting the structure of the state, the structure of power and the political system;

names of groups and groups of persons;

names that reflect the functioning of authorities and the political life of society;

names of scientific disciplines;

names of properties, qualities, characteristics), each of which is divided into subgroups.

This classification is the most accurate and covers all the main thematic groups of political vocabulary.

Let's analyze the classification of political vocabulary by Felber H., who distinguishes the following thematic groups:

diplomacy (exequatur);

world political realities (Benelux, political socialization);

form of government and state system (monarchy);

civil law terminology (nation);

political economy (securities issuer, embargo);

military-political vocabulary (disarmament);

social statuses and positions (MP, ombudsman);

international documentation and organizations (Worldwatch Institute, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) [11, p. 4].

In the framework of this study, Lejczyk W. M.'s approach is interesting, which includes the following groups as political vocabulary:

words of actual political discourse, the group of which includes:

nomenclature names - persons (officials), bodies, departments, etc.;

names of territories;

terminology of electoral and related technologies;

names of political currents, movements, political parties and their members;

political jargon;

legal terms used in socio-political discourse;

Mass media, the group of which includes:

Legal jargon;

actual terms; - religious terms used in the socio-political discourse of mass media;

economic terms used in the socio-political discourse of mass media;

ethnographic terms used in the social and political discourse of mass media;

technical terms used to denote realities have great social significance;

cultural, philosophical, sociological, psychological and linguistic terms used to denote realities of great social importance [12, p. 5].

Thus, the author singles out the spheres of functioning of political terminology and cites socio-political materials in which this layer of vocabulary is used. In general, these materials can be divided into:

documentary and business materials (constitution, laws and legislative acts);

informative and descriptive materials (reference materials, informative notes, historical descriptions and reviews);

journalistic materials in the narrow sense of the word (articles, speeches).

The researcher also notes that each of these groups is characterized by the use of special vocabulary. For example, a lot of clichds, realities and special terminology are used in documentary and business materials; in informative and descriptive materials - historical realities, many terms, proper names, etc.; in journalism - emotionally colored elements, syntactic figures, figurative expressions, quotes, etc. [12, p. 45].

As we can see from the above classifications, the boundaries of political vocabulary are quite blurred, since language is a living, moving matter, and political vocabulary is the fastest responding to

changes occurring in the world. That is why, in our opinion, it is more expedient to use the analysis of thematic groups for the analysis of political vocabulary, which will allow to highlight the words and phrases of the political vocabulary in full.

Conclusion

Political activity has always played a special role in the life of the society. A country's place in the international arena, its relations with other states, and its role in the activities of the world community depend on a certain political position or situation. However, an important role in determining the country's image is played by the way it is presented by the political leaders of this state. With the help of speeches, politicians have the opportunity to address both the international community and the citizens of their country.

Political discourse is any language formation, subject, addressee belonging to the sphere of politics. This definition of discourse involves the study of political linguistic material taking into account the cultural, spatial and temporal conditions of its existence, as well as the sociocultural and personal characteristics of its creators and authors.

Political discourse performs the function of influencing the listener by attracting attention, moving certain emotions, and persuasion. The pragmatic focus of political discourse, its specific attitude towards the receiver of information determines not only the selection of linguistic and non-linguistic means, but also the way of their presentation and organization. Political discourse is a type of institutional discourse, a specialized type of communication, determined by the social functions of partners and regulated by content and form.

Список використаних джерел

Хома Н. М. (наук. ред.) (2015а). Новітня політична лексика (неологізми, оказіоналізми та інші новотвори): навч. Енциклопедичний словник-довідник (за наук. ред. Хоми Н. М.). Львів: Новий світ о 2000а. Відновлено: https://www.academia.edu.

Ткач О. І., Косів Петро Річард. Політологія: термінологічний словник. Навч. посібник. К.: Унів. Україна, 2012

Jeffries L. Meaning in English. An Introduction to Language Study: MacMillan Press Ltd., 1998. 267 p.

Crystal D. Introducing Linguistics. Penguin Books, 1992. 77 p.

Felber H. Manual of Terminology, Paris, 1984. 426 p.

Zgusta L. Manual of Lexicography. Prague, 1971. 360 p.

Третяк Н. В. (2008). Жаргонна лексика в друкованих ЗМІ (номінативно-експресивна функція) (Автореф. дис. канд. філол. наук). К.: Інститут укр. мови.

Kageura K. The Dynamics of Terminology. A Descriptive Theory of Term Formation and Terminological Growth, John Benjamins Publ. Company, 2002. 322 p.

Rey A. Essays on Terminology, John Benjamins Publ. Comp., 1995. 223 p.

Томіленко Л. М. Термінологічна лексика в сучасній тлумачній лексикографії української літературної мови. Івано- Франківськ: Фоліант. Вілновлено: eprints.zu.edu.ua/21233/1/ monograph.pdf., 2015

Felber H. Teoria i praktyka termiologii, Sigillum Universitatis Varsoviensis, 1994.320 s.

Lejczyk W. M., Biesiekirska L. Terminoznawstwo: Przedmiot, Metody, Struktura, 1998. 184 s.

Размещено на Allbest.ru