CC BY
163
FUNCTIONING OF ENGLISH POLITICAL TERMS IN PROFESSIONAL AND NON-PROFESSIONAL DISCOURSE
функционирование англоязычной политической терминологии в профессиональном и непрофессиональном дискурсах
А.Е. ФЕДОТОВА, МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова^1 А.А. КОСАРИНА, МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова1
alexa7979@yandex. ru (1)ФГБОУ ВО МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, 119991, Москва, Ленинские горы, ГСП-1, 1-й корпус гуманитарных факультетов
Политическая терминология и ее функционирование как в профессиональном, так и в непрофессиональном дискурсе представляет значительный интерес для политиков, филологов и непрофессионалов. Изучение характеристик функционирования терминов из области политики показало, насколько различны два типа дискурса. Термины в непрофессиональном дискурсе часто основаны на метафорах и имеют экспрессивные коннотации. Они используются со сленговыми словами и жаргонизмами или стилистически окрашенными словами. Также часто встречается игра слов. В плане выражения были найдены следующие закономерности:
1. Термины написаны с ошибками.
2. Новые термины часто строятся по модели уже существующих.
В вопросах особенностей стиля можно утверждать, что в непрофессиональном дискурсе присутствуют и элементы профессионального дискурса, такие как определения, заимствованные из официальных документов. В целом же стиль речи неформальный, так как постоянно используется игра слов в отношении терминов, олицетворения и сленговые выражения. Следующей особенностью является широкое использование сокращенных форм терминов.В профессиональном дискурсе используются исключительно стандартизированные термины, занесенные в терминологические словари. Сленговые слова, метафоры и игра слов в данном дискурсе не используются. Как и в непрофессиональном дискурсе, присутствуют олицетворения и примеры метонимии. В отличие от непрофессионального дискурса, все определения нейтральны и не окрашены стилистически. Еще одна особенность состоит в капитализации терминов, преимущественно выраженных именем существительным.
Ключевые слова: термин, дискурс, институциональный дискурс, непрофессиональный дискурс, неинститу-ционаьный дискурс, метафоризация
Political terminology in general and its functioning in professional and non-professional discourse are of interest for politicians, philologists and laymen.
Political terminology is an integral part of the language of Politics which has always been in the scope of interest of many outstanding Russian and foreign scholars such as Ivan Pro-tchenko, H. Militz, J. Duboisand many others [6-9].
The terminology of Politics belongs to the sphere of terminology of the Humanities, which differs from that of the Exact and Natural Sciences. It has been found out that terminology of Politics also includes a great number of nomenclature units, thus, terms and nomens have been differentiated between.
It is impossible to analyze the functioning of the political terms in professional and non-professional discourse without mentioning the notion itself. Various opinions are held concerning the analysis of the notion «political discourse».
Thus, N.M. Perelgut and E.B. Sukhotskaya stick to the point of view that political discourse has two general variations: politics in the narrow sense of the word belongs to institutional discourse, whereas the discourse realization of politics in a wider sense belongs to non-institutional discourse: «узкое понимание политики предполагает институциональный дискурс, в то время как дискурсивная реализация политики в широком смысле реализуется в неинституциональном дискурсе» [1].
Some scholars interpret the notion of political discourse in the narrow sense of the word. According to T.A. van Dijk, political discourse is the discourse of politicians, realized in government documents, parliament debates, party programmes and speeches of politicians. Therefore, political discourse is limited by professional sphere [2].
E.I. Sheygal uses the term «field approach» (полевой подход) to analyze the political discourse. According to E.I. Sheygal,
discourse can be viewed as political if one of its components: the subject, the addressee or the contents of speech belongs to the sphere of politics. Moreover, according to the author, the «field approach» allows to find other types of institutional discourse, which are connected with the political discourse [3].
S.N. Plotnikova offers another approach to streamline the types of political discourse. From the point of view of the subject of speech, she distinguishes between two types of political discourse:
- discourse политиков);
- discourse реагирования)
Discourse of response is the response to the discourse of politicians. Therefore, the discourse of politicians has an institutional nature, whereas the discourse of reaction belongs to the non-institutional type [4].
The analysis in this article is based on the theory that institutional discourse is the same notion as the professional one, whereas non-professional discourse is similar to personal discourse.
Thus, E.A. Veber singles out the above mentioned types of discourse, saying that professional discourse involves communication between professionals whereas personal or nonprofessional discourse «реализуется в ситуации бытового общения, когда задачей участника дискурса, дипломата в широком понимании этого слова, является предотвращение или элиминация конфликта» [5].
The study of the characteristics and functioning of political terms in professional and nonprofessional discourse has demonstrated that they greatly differ in the two types of discourse.
In professional discourse, only standard terms, which are registered in terminological dictionaries, are used. Professional jargonisms, play on words or terms and metaphor-based terms are not observed in this type of discourse. Professional discourse as well as non-professional one can include numerous examples of metonymy:
«The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and Officers; and shall have the sole Power of impeachment». [Article 1, section 2]
The term House is used not in its direct meaning, but in the meaning of Members of Parliament.
In the following abstract the term House is used not in its direct meaning, but in the meaning of Members of Parliament. So, the term is personified as it shall choose their Speaker and shall have the sole Power of impeachment. Another specific feature concerns the combinability of terms with attributes. In non-professional discourse, attributes can be expressive or stylistically marked, but in professional discourse, expressivity is not allowed and attributes are neutral.
In professional discourse, many terms are borrowings, mainly from Latin, for example: quorum, president pro tempore, census, ex post facto law, etc., or from other field of studies, such as law or economics, for example: double jeopardy, imports, exports, assets, liabilities, etc. Certain terms turn out to be archaic. These features are not observed in non-professional discourse. Professional discourse also makes use of a great number of international terms such as: republic, corruption, senator, president, constitution, congress, jurisdiction, tribunal, migration, contract, etc.
Moreover, the number of terms used in a certain type of discourse is also of considerable importance due to the notion of terminological intensity: terms are much more often used in professional discourse than in the non-professional one. The research has shown that the texts of professional discourse comprise about 20 % of terms, whereas in non-professional discourse terms account for only approximately 4 %.
Terms in non-professional discourse have certain specific features which are not typical of them in professional discourse. The research has shown that terms used in non-professional discourse are often metaphor-based and expressive, for example such terms as an armchair general, to backstab,flip-flopping, etc.:
«Leave ideology to the armchair generals» [Season 1; series 1]
armchair general - «one who pontificates about world events; a sofa sophist. The armchair is a place of comfort from which to make discomfiting remarks; it can also be used as a symbol of laziness» [10, p. 25].
of politicians (дискурс of response (дискурс
Another example of using a metaphor-based term is the following phrase: «The majority whip S wife stabs him in the back» [Season 1; episode 10]. Here the term stab in the back is based on a metaphor and means the following: «treachery; or withholding expected support» [10, p. 696]. This term is used in the series more than once, for example, in the following phrase: «To backstab me?» [Season 1; episode 10].
An interesting example of using a metaphor-based term is the following sentence: «It seems like flip-flopping»[Season 1; episode 10]. The terminological dictionary defines as flipflop «a dramatic reversal of position; a charge that a political figure, with a finger to the winds of change, has completely changed his mind» [10, p. 253].More often than not, a wordplay with terms or their meaning can be found in this kind of discourse. An example is part of a dialogue which sounds as follows:
- Kern is a boy scout.
- Nobody's a boy scout. Not even boy scouts. [Season 1; series 1]
The first phrase includes a political metaphor. In politics Boy Scout is «a nanve politician; one with a-head-in-the-clouds approach to government. Boy Scout is a derisive comment, made by cynical reporters or politicians, about those who do not bear the scars of compromise» [10, p. 77]. However, the metaphorical meaning of the term is played upon, since the response is «Nobody is a boy scout, not even boy scouts». The interlocutor downplays the metaphorical meaning of the term and understands it as the general one.
- Even so, you run him for governor, people are going to dig into his past.
- Well, we turn that into an asset, not a liability. [Season 1; series 5]
Here it is demonstrated how the meaning of the terms assets and liabilities is played upon, as terms are used not in their direct meaning, though they are not political metaphors. Asset here is a synonym to «advantage» whereas liability is a synonym to «disadvantage».
In non-professional discourse new terms can be easily coined either according to the model of an existing term or according to new models, for example: trickle-down diplo-
macy, brand of politics, swing state, staff-Republicans, etc. Terms can also be written with mistakes. The fist reason for it is that in written non-professional discourse an attempt at reproducing emotions is made. Thus, for example the phrase «Why? Im-immigration is too controversial»[Season 1; series 1] shows a kind of emotional trembling resulting in the form of the term immigration - «the movement into a new country of a person who is not a citizen of that country, to live there permanently» [11], which in this context is written with an extra —im prefix.
Another example of the kind is the phrase «It's a communist «agua-larchy.» Oligar «Oliguarchy» [Season 1; series 1]. Here the term oligarchy - «a political system that is controlled by a small group of individuals, who govern in their own interests» [11] is misspelled two times. The situation is that the Congressman, who pronounces it, is drunk and is not able to say it in the right way. So, once again, the informal discourse makes use of the wrong way of the form of the term.
In this example terms are misspelled in non-professional discourse. The general reason for such spelling is an attempt to reproduce intonations of oral speech.
Another specific feature of terms in nonprofessional discourse is that terms are often used with expressive attributes:
«Tax reform isn't sexy enough» [Season 1; series 1]
«The bill is garbage, Donald» [Season 1; series 1].
Here the examples of such combinations are given. It should be stated that non-professional discourse also includes term attributes typical of official documents, for example: honourable, bound by, central, to relinquish, etc.
To conclude, in professional discourse only officially registered terms are used, expressivity or play upon the meaning of the terms is not allowed, term attributes are neutral. Terms in non-professional discourse are characterized by greater expressivity as metaphors, wordplay with the meaning of the terms, professional slang word, and expressive attributes are frequently used.
Библиографический список
1. Перельгут, Н.М. О структуре понятия «Политический Дискурс» / Н.М. Перельгут, Е.Б. Сухоцкая // Вестник НВГУ, 2013. - №2. - C. 35-41.
2. Van Dijk T.A. What is political discourse analysis? / T.A. Van Dijk// Political linguistics; ed. Jan Blommaert, Chris Bulcaen. Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 11-52.
3. Шейгал, Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса / Е.И. Шейгал. - М.: Гнозис, 2004. - С. 244-245.
4. Плотникова, С.Н. Политик как конструктор дискурса реагирования / С.Н. Плотникова // Политический дискурс в России: Материалы постоянно действующего семинара. - Вып. 8. - М., 2005. - С. 22-26.
5. Вебер, Е.А. Опыт лингвистического исследования когнитивного диссонанса в английском дипломатическом
дискурсе: дите.... канд. филол. наук: 10.02.04. / Е.А. Вебер. - Иркутск, 2004. - С. 35.
6. Анисимова, А.Г. Типология терминов англоязычного искусствоведения / А.Г. Анисимова. - М., 1994. - 20 с.
7. Ахманова, О.С. О принципах и методах лингвистического исследования / О.С. Ахманова - М.: МГУ, 1966. - С. 117.
8. Ахманова, О.С. Словарь лингвистических терминов / О.С. Ахманова - М.: Советская Энциклопедия, 1969. - 608 с.
9. Бархударов, С.Г. О значении и задачах научных исследований в области терминологии // Лингвистические проблемы научно-технической терминологии / С.Г. Бархударов. - М.: Наука, 1970. - 231 с.
10. William Safire «Safire's Political Dictionary». - Oxford University Press; Revised edition (March 31, 2008).
11. American Spirit Political Dictionary Online (http://www. iamericanspirit.com)
FUNCTIONING OF ENGLISH POLITICAL TERMS IN PROFESSIONAL AND NON-PROFESSIONAL DISCOURSE
Fedotova A.Ye., Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University(1); Kosarina A.A., Faculty of Philology,
Lomonosov Moscow State University(1)
alexa7979@yandex.ru
(1)Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Philology, Russia, 119991, Moscow, 1-51 Leninskiye Gory, GSP-1, 1st Corps Humanitarian faculties
Political terminology in general and its functioning in professional and non-professional discourse are of interest for politicians, philologists and laymen. The study of the characteristics and functioning of Political terms in professional and nonprofessional discourse has demonstrated that they greatly differ in the two types of discourse. Terms used in non-professional discourse are often metaphor-based and expressive. They can be used with slang words or stylistically marked adjectives and nouns. Terms can be personified. More often than not, a wordplay with terms or their meaning can be found in this kind of discourse. Concerning the expression plane, the following observations can be made: 1) terms can be misspelt; 2) new terms can be easily coined either according to the model of an existing term or on another one. As far as the specific features of style of non-professional discourse are concerned, it should be stated that its style includes the elements of professional discourse, such as term attributes typical of official documents. However, in general, the style is not formal, as wordplay upon the meanings of the terms, personifications and use of slang words instead of terms is frequent. Another specific feature is a wide use of contracted terminological forms typical of informal discourse. In professional discourse, only standard terms, which are registered in terminological dictionaries, are used. Slang words, play on words or terms and metaphor-based terms are not found in this type of discourse. Professional discourse as well as non-professional one can include numerous examples of metonymy and personifications. Another specific feature concerns the combinability of terms with attributes. In non-professional discourse, attributes can be expressive or stylistically marked, but in professional discourse, expressivity is not allowed and attributes are neutral. Another specific feature is capitalization of certain terms - generally, nouns.
Keywords: term, discourse, professional discourse, non-nprofessional discourse, institutional discourse, non-institutional discourse
References
1. Perel'gut N.M., Sukhotskaya E.B. O strukture ponyatiya «Politicheskiy Diskurs [On the structure of the concept of "political discourse]. Bulletin NVGU, 2013. № 2. pp. 35-41.
2. Van Dijk T.A. What is political discourse analysis? Political linguistics; ed. Jan Blommaert, Chris Bulcaen. Amsterdam, 1998, pp. 11-52.
3. Sheygal E.I. Semiotikapoliticheskogo diskursa [The semiotics of political discourse]. Moscow: Gnosis, 2004, pp. 244-245
4. Plotnikova S.N. Politik kak konstruktor diskursa reagirovaniya [Politician as a designer discourse response]. Political discourse in Russia: Proceedings of regular seminar. Vol. 8. Moscow, 2005, pp. 22-26
5. Veber E. A. Opyt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya kognitivnogo dissonansa v angliyskom diplomaticheskom diskurse [Experience of linguistic research of cognitive dissonance in the British diplomatic discourse: disc .... cand. filol. Sciences: 10.02.04.]. Irkutsk, 2004. pp. 35
6. Anisimova A.G. Tipologiya terminov angloyazychnogo iskusstvovedeniya [Typology of English-language terms of art]. Moscow, 1994.
7. Akhmanova O.S. Oprintsipakh i metodakh lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya [On the principles and methods of linguistic research]. Moscow, Moscow State University, 1966.
8. Akhmanova O.S. Slovar'lingvisticheskikh terminov [Dictionary of linguistic terms]. Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966.
9. Barkhudarov S.G. O znachenii i zadachakh nauchnykh issledovaniy v oblasti terminologii //Lingvisticheskie problemy nauchno-tekhnicheskoy terminologii [On the significance and objectives of the research in the field of terminology]. Linguistic problems of scientific and technical terminology. Moscow: Nauka, 1970.
10. William Safire «Safire's Political Dictionary». Oxford University Press; Revised edition (March 31, 2008).
11. American Spirit Political Dictionary Online (http://www.iamericanspirit.com)
