Objectification Features of Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion Categories in the Russian Language (Exemplified by “Glubinka” and “Glush” Concepts)

Nikolay Shamne, Marina Milovanova
{"title":"Objectification Features of Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion Categories in the Russian Language (Exemplified by “Glubinka” and “Glush” Concepts)","authors":"Nikolay Shamne, Marina Milovanova","doi":"10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.4.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the consideration of the objectification peculiarities of the social exclusion and social inclusion categories in the territorial aspect in the Russian language on the case of the \"glubinka\" (\"hinterland\") and \"glush\" (\"wilderness\") concepts. As a result of the definitional analysis of the eponymous lexemes denoting these concepts, nuclear semantic features are identified – large distance from an object with different social conditions (hinterland) and a large distance from the center and sparse population (wilderness). The concepts are characterized from the standpoint of the semantic field. It is established that the core of the semantic fields of the \"glubinka\" (\"hinterland\") and \"glush\" (\"wilderness\") concepts are linguistic units that directly indicate nuclear semantic features. The periphery is comprised of the units that actualize the processes of social exclusion and in some cases social inclusion. Verbs with negation and predicative No are noted to be the common prevalent linguistic means that express the category of social exclusion, while the units of the thematic group \"social difficulties\"; quantitative qualifiers which indicate a low (up to a minimum) degree of something (semantic field \"hinterland\"); verbs of socially conditioned displacement, and deictic units (semantic field \"wilderness\") are viewed as distinctive ones. It is concluded that the \"glush\" (\"wilderness\") lexeme objectifies the processes of territorial social exclusion in the context to a greater extent than the \"glubinka\" (\"hinterland\") lexeme.","PeriodicalId":42545,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Yazykoznanie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Seriya 2-Yazykoznanie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.4.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to the consideration of the objectification peculiarities of the social exclusion and social inclusion categories in the territorial aspect in the Russian language on the case of the "glubinka" ("hinterland") and "glush" ("wilderness") concepts. As a result of the definitional analysis of the eponymous lexemes denoting these concepts, nuclear semantic features are identified – large distance from an object with different social conditions (hinterland) and a large distance from the center and sparse population (wilderness). The concepts are characterized from the standpoint of the semantic field. It is established that the core of the semantic fields of the "glubinka" ("hinterland") and "glush" ("wilderness") concepts are linguistic units that directly indicate nuclear semantic features. The periphery is comprised of the units that actualize the processes of social exclusion and in some cases social inclusion. Verbs with negation and predicative No are noted to be the common prevalent linguistic means that express the category of social exclusion, while the units of the thematic group "social difficulties"; quantitative qualifiers which indicate a low (up to a minimum) degree of something (semantic field "hinterland"); verbs of socially conditioned displacement, and deictic units (semantic field "wilderness") are viewed as distinctive ones. It is concluded that the "glush" ("wilderness") lexeme objectifies the processes of territorial social exclusion in the context to a greater extent than the "glubinka" ("hinterland") lexeme.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
俄语社会排斥和社会包容范畴的客观化特征(以“Glubinka”和“Glush”概念为例)
本文以“腹地”(glubinka)和“荒野”(glush)概念为例,探讨了俄语地域方面社会排斥和社会包容范畴的客观化特点。通过对表示这些概念的同名词的定义分析,确定了核心语义特征——与具有不同社会条件的对象(腹地)距离大,与中心和稀疏人口(荒野)距离大。从语义场的角度对概念进行表征。“腹地”(glubinka)和“荒野”(glush)概念语义场的核心是直接表示核心语义特征的语言单位。外围由实现社会排斥过程的单元组成,在某些情况下实现社会包容。否定动词和谓语No动词是表达社会排斥范畴的常用语言手段,而主体性单元“社会困难”是表达社会排斥范畴的常用语言手段;定量限定词表示某事物的低(最低)程度(语义域“腹地”);社会条件位移动词和指示单位(语义场“荒野”)被视为独特的动词。结果表明,“glush”(“荒野”)词位比“glubinka”(“腹地”)词位在更大程度上物化了语境中的地域社会排斥过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Verbal Collocations with Components “(Nouveau) Coronavirus” and “COVID-19” in French The Metaphor of the State and Ways of Expressing It in Russian Official Speech Style as a Relational Polyvalent Category Objectification Features of Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion Categories in the Russian Language (Exemplified by “Glubinka” and “Glush” Concepts) Methods for Estimating the Language Conflict Potential
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1