Authors
- Grishaeva Ludmuila I. Doctor of Philology, Professor
Annotation
The article focuses on the phenomenon of euphemization and euphemisms in particular. The latter are regarded from different perspectives: cognitive, nominative and communicative. There is special attention paid to the reasons for the widespread use of euphemisms as secondary nominative means in various frameworks. Euphemisms in general have become one of the most common and effective nominative tools for designating various elements of extra-linguistic reality when solving various kinds of communicative and cognitive tasks. Differentiating the two entities while analyzing various communicative products, namely, euphemisms and euphemization, allows to consistently describe the ways and means of implementing cognitive, nominative and communicative strategies in various conditions and for various purposes. Thus, it becomes possible to identify the reasons for the subject of cognition and communication appealing to euphemisms, to establish the features of the corresponding category of the subject, to characterize the consequences of using euphemisms as a means of addressing specific communicative and cognitive tasks, as well as to determine the felicity conditions for the corresponding actions of communicants who prefer euphemization as a communicative strategy to other potentially possible strategies in similar conditions. The most significant consequence of using euphemisms as nominative means for interaction is their ability to condense the information flow, to save cognitive and communicative efforts due to the co-activation of conventionally implicated information, to introduce new ways of profiling a certain amount
of information about a particular element of extra-linguistic and / or virtual reality into the actual cognitive and communicative flow of information in certain conditions and to promote the conventionalization of verbal and non-verbal markers of new interaction strategies against a particular cultural background.
How to link insert
Grishaeva, L. I. (2023). EUPHEMIZATION AS A CAUSE AND CONSEQUENCE OF THE VARIABILITY OF THE RATIO IN THE COMMUNICATION OF OBJECTIFIED AND CO-ACTIVATED INFORMATION ABOUT THE WORLD Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2023, №4 (52), 47. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-913X.2023.52.4.05
References
1.
1. Euphemism. Small Academic Dictionary. (2023, October 13). https://gufo.me/dict/mas/euphemism (In Russ.).
2.
2. Euphemisms. Dictionaries. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. (2023, October 13). https://rus-lingvist-dict.slovaronline.com/1293-euphemisms (In Russ.).
3.
3. Krysin, L. P. (2008). Illustrative explanatory dictionary of foreign words. Eksmo. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Grishaeva, L. I. (2022). Dialogues on intercultural communication. Nauka-Yunipress. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Babina, L. V. (2003). Cognitive bases of secondary meanings in language and speech. Publishing house of TSU named after G. R. Derzhavin. (In Russ.).
6.
6. Devkin, V. D. (2015). Essays on lexicology. Monograph. I. P. Amzarakova, S. V. Burenkova red.). Under general editorial I. P. Amsarakovoy. Izdatel’stvo FGBOU VPO «Hakasskij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. N.F. Katanova». (In Russ.).
7.
7. Grishaeva, L. I. (2022a). Homo sapiens versus homo ludens or Homo sapiens & homo ludens? Povolzhskij pedagogicheskij vestnik, Vol. 10, 1(34), 54–64. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Grishaeva, L. I. (2020). Text variation in communication. Nauka-Yunipress. (In Russ.).
9.
9. Ivanyan, E. P. (2022). Euphemisms of the Russian language. Flinta. (In Russ.).
10.
10. Tsvasman, L. (2006). Informationsgesellschaft [information society]. Das groβe Lexikon Medien und Kommunikation. Kompendium interdisziplinӓrer Konzepte (S. 134–140). Leo Tsvasman (Hrsg.). Ergon Verlag. (In German).
11.
11. Stepanova, M. D., Chernyshova, I. I. (2003). Lexicology of the modern German language. Akademiya. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Antrushina, G. B., Afanas’eva, O. V., & Morozova, N. N. (2023). Lexicology of the English language. Yurait. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Senichkina, E. P. (2008). Dictionary of euphemisms of the Russian language. Flinta: Nauka. (In Russ.).
14.
14. Zeitlin, S. N. (2001). Dictionary of children’s word-building innovations. Verlag Otto Sagner, (2023, October 13). https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/26160/1003927.pdf?sequence=1 (In Russ.).
15.
15. Rada, R. (2013). Tabus und Euphemismen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. (2023, October 13). https://edit.elte.hu/xmlui/handle/10831/40976 (In German).
16.
16. Granovskaya, R. M. (1981). Perception and signs of form. Nauka. (In Russ.).
17.
17. Solso, R. L. (2002). Cognitive Psychology. Trivola, Liberiya. (In Russ.).
18.
18. Anderson, J. R. (2001). Kognitive Psychologie. Spektrum: AkademischerVerlag. (In German).
19.
19. Grishaeva, L. I., Katanova, E. N., Kashkina, O. V., & Boyko, M. A. (2009). Linguistic means of constructing the subject’s image in political communication. Collective monograph. CPI VSU. (In Russ.).
20.
20. Grischaewa, L. I. (2022). Konstruktion vom Simularkrum, ludophile Texte, soziale Kritik und Präzedenzphänomene als sekundäres nominatives Ausdrucksmittel. Russian German studies (pp. 120–144). Yearbook of the Russian Union of Germanists. Vol. 19. Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod. (In German).
21.
21. Konyushkevich, M. I. (2014). Typology of speech subjects: nomenclature and nomination. The subject of cognition and communication: linguistic and intercultural aspects (pp. 49–68). Nauka-Yunipress. (In Russ.).
22.
22. Man as a subject of communication: universal and specific. (2006). Voronezh State University. (In Russ.).
23.
23. Big explanatory psychological dictionary. (2001). T. 1. Veche-Ast. (In Russ.).