Modeling semantic-cognitive structures of the German verb klingen in political discourse

Aim. To describe in the discursive space of political texts the features of the semantic-cognitive model of the lexeme klingen as a phase verb of the semantic field of sound in the German language. Methodology. The study was conducted using contextual analysis, cognitive interpretation, statistical and comparative analysis. The semantic-cognitive structure of the phase verb of sound situations klingen is considered in political discourse on the material of the German language in text extracts by analyzing the semantic-syntactic propositions that include this verb. It is assumed that the patterns of semantic-cognitive structures of certain lexical units will vary depending on the type of institutional and individual discourse.
Results. The verb klingen, according to the German language corpora DWDS (dwds.de) and Wortschatz Uni Leipzig (uni-leipzig.de), is the most used lexical unit with sound semantics in the German language as a whole and in texts of different types of discourse. The material for the study was text extracts with the word klingen from the sections “Politische Reden” and “Bundestagskorpus” of the language corpus DWDS in the amount of 250 units. In the texts of political discourse, the phase verb of sound situations klingen realizes in 90% of cases the meaning “interpretation of the meaning of what has been said or written.” Thus, the semantic-syntactic proposition with the word klingen serves as a means of representing intertextuality and interpretation at the level of meaning and emotions of information not clearly presented. Analysis of text extracts allows us to conclude that linguistic means that explicate perception, in this case auditory, serve in a certain type of discourse, for example, political, as a means of verbal expression of intertextuality.
Research implications. The theoretical significance of the study is due to the possible use of the results obtained in the study of discourse, and this work will help complement the already existing descriptions of the semantic-cognitive structures of auditory perception and sound situations. Practical significance can be determined by the possible use of language material and research results in the practice of teaching the German language, as well as by expanding the semantic potential of these words in dictionary definitions depending on the topic of the context (discourse type).

1. Odintsova, I. V. (2017). On the problem of correlation of the notions “text” and “discourse” in linguistics and linguodidactics. In: Vestnik of Kostroma State University, 23 (2), 121–125 (in Russ.).

2. Romanova, T. V., Vinokurova, A. S. & Malikova, D. A. (2021). Cognitive-discursive analysis of new spheres and genres of communication. Nizhny Novgorod: DECOM publ. (in Russ.).

3. Ravochkin, N. N. (2018). Politic discourse peculiarities. In: Vestnik of Kostroma State University, 24 (3), 244–250 (in Russ.).

4. Mishankina, N. A. & Chernysh, O. A. (2020). Vocabulary of official records in the aspect of discursive formation “discontinuity” (based on the materials of records dated by 1917-1933). In: Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 66, 107–131. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/66/6 (in Russ.).

5. Dijk, T. A. van (1995). Discourse, semantics and ideology. In: Discourse and society, 6 (2), 243–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006.

6. Orlova, N. V. & Butakova, L. O. (2022). Discursive semantics: ontological foundations and the experience of reconstruction. In: Philological Class, 27 (4), 30–37. DOI: 10.51762/1FK-2022-27-04-03 (in Russ.).

7. Novikova, A. M. (2016). Subject matter of the political world linguistic picture. In: Translation and comparative linguistics, 12, 111–113 (in Russ.).

8. Chudinov, A. P. (2006). Political linguistics. Moscow: Flinta publ., Nauka publ. (in Russ.).

9. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2021). Text and social context: sociolinguistic and discursive analysis of meaning generation. Moscow: Lenand publ. (in Russ.).

10. Demyankov, V. Z. (2002). Political discourse as a subject of political science philology. In: Political science. Political discourse: History and modern research, 3, 31–44 (in Russ.).

11. Sukhanov, Yu. Yu. (2018). Political discourse as object of linguistic analysis. In: RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 9 (1), 200–212. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-1-200-212 (in Russ.).

12. Barysova, N. T. (2009). Political discourse. In: News of advanced science – 2009: conference materials. URL: http://www.rusnauka.com/15_NPN_2009/Politologia/46717.doc.htm (accessed: 12.09.2023) (in Russ.).

13. Sheigal, E. I. (2000). Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena publ. (in Russ.).

14. Khalatyan, A. B. (2010). The specificity of modern political discourse organization. In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University, 6, 51–54 (in Russ.).

15. Ivanova, I. P. (2015). To the problem of intertextuality in modern linguistics. In: Scientific notes of the Tambov branch of RoSMU, 3, 43–47 (in Russ.).

16. Khalizev, V. E. (2000). Theory of Literature. Moscow: Vyschaya shkola publ. (in Russ.).

17. Volchkov, A. S. (2018). Intertextuality and Biblical studies. In: Christian Reading, 4, 42–46 (in Russ.).