Shifts in communicative semantics in the media discourse

Aim. The article deals with the problem of unconscious (automatic) use in the process of communication in media discourse of words and constructions whose meaning has changed over time. The aim of the study is to identify the supposed semantic shifts, the task is to find out the reasons for the identified shifts and interpret the processes of their appearance.

Methodology. To solve the problem, we used corpus analysis methods to form a sample and subsequent contextual, semantic and etymological analysis, as well as quantitative methods to identify the frequency of occurrence in the sample of the identified shifts with the ipm indicator.

Results. The main results and main conclusions include the fixation of shifts in the communicative norm due to the non-distinction of the semantics of a word or a construction, which subsequently lead to the consolidation of the usual shift and further cause the non-distinction of their normative and erroneous use.

Research implications. Theoretical significance consists in the development of the theory of semantic shifts in the Russian language, consideration of the law of semantic polarisation or enantiosemia resulting from the active use of these constructions in the language of media discourse. The practical significance involves using the results to distinguish the situation of semantic shift in order to avoid its transition into the category of norm.

1. Maksimenko, O. I. (2023). Language play in naming and advertising in the urban landscape as a shift in the communicative norm. In: Language norm in synchrony and diachrony: cultural heritage or an encroachment on self-expression? Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University publ., pp. 173–192 (in Russ.).

2. Germanova, N. N. (2023). Language norm at the epicenter of discussions: Russian and English-language linguistics on the language norm and language standardization. In: Language norm in synchrony and diachrony: cultural heritage or an encroachment on self-expression? Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University publ., pp. 11–40 (in Russ.).

3. Coseriu, E. (2001). Synchrony, Diachrony and History: The Problem of Language Change. Moscow: URSS publ. (in Russ.).

4. Arutyunova, N. D. (1987). Anomalies and language (to the problem of the linguistic Иpicture of the world”). In: Topics in the Study of Language, 3, 3–19 (in Russ.).

5. Arutyunova, N. D. (1999). The concept of the norm. Anomalies and language. In: Arutyunova, N. D. Language and the human world. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kultury publ., pp. 65–90 (in Russ.).

6. Vinogradov, V. V. (1997). Basic types of lexical meanings of a word. In: Vinogradov, V. V. Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography. Moscow: Nauka publ., pp. 162–189 (in Russ.).

7. Jedlička, A. (1988). Types of norms of language communication. In: New in foreign linguistics. Issue XX: Theory of literary language in the works of scientists of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Moscow: Progress publ., pp. 135–149 (in Russ.).

8. Efanova, L. G. (2010). The category of norm as an linguistic object. In: Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 6 (96), 21–24 (in Russ.).

9. Efanova, L. G. (2015). Norm as a philosophical and semantic category. In: Siberian Journal of Science, 1 (16), 70–78 (in Russ.).

10. Germanova, N. N. (2015). Language standardization as a means of creatingdifferent types of sociocultural identity. In: Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 6 (717), 149–157 (in Russ.).

11. Itskovich, V. A. (1970). The norm and its codification. In: Actual problems of speech culture. Moscow: Nauka publ., pp. 9–39 (in Russ.).

12. Krysin, L. P. (2017). To the correlation of the language system, its norms and usage. In: Communication Studies, 2 (12), 20–31 (in Russ.).

13. Issers, O. S. (2018). Representations of speech ideal, speech decency and language taste (on the material of the pilot sociolinguistic experiment). In: Communication Studies, 4 (18), 95–111. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2018.4.95-111 (in Russ.).

14. Shmelyov, A. D. (2014). A widespread mistake or a new norm: what is the way to distinguish one from the other? In: Domestic Notes, 2 (59), 274–285 (in Russ).

15. Savova, M. R. (2009). Ethical and communicative norms in system of norms of an estimation of speech. In: Science and School, 1, 24–27 (in Russ.).

16. Grishaeva, L. I. (2023). Explicit or hidden norm: normativity of communication in communication. In: Language norm in synchrony and diachrony: cultural heritage or an encroachment on self-expression? Moscow: Moscow State Linguistic University publ., pp. 76–110 (in Russ.).

17. Dorofeev, Yu. V. (2020). Transformation of the semantics of linguistic units in the text: A functional approach. In: Proceedings of Kazan University. Humanities Sciences Series, 162 (5), 48–61. DOI: 10.26907/2541-7738.2020.5.48-61 (in Russ.).

18. Belyakov, M. V. & Maksimenko, O. I. (2024). The Problem of Semantic Shift in Modern Russian: Corpus Research on the Example of a News Media Discourse. In: RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 15(1), 174–194. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2024-15-1-174-194 (in Russ.).

19. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Allen &Unwin.

20. Blank, A. (1999). Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical Semantic change. In: Blank, A. & Koch, P. Historical Semantics and Cognition. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 61–99. DOI: 10.1515/9783110804195.61.

21. Bréal, M. (1899). Essai de sémantique; 2nd ed. Paris: Hachette.

22. Dirk, G. (1983). Reclassifying Semantic change. In: Quaderni di Semantica, 4, 217–240.

23. Ullmann, S. (1972). Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.

24. Darmesteter, A. (1887). La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Paris: Delagrave.

25. Uspensky, V. A. (2020). Are semantic shifts harmless? In: Uspensky, V. A. Works on non-mathematics: in 5 books. Book 1. In memory of the departed. Publishing apparatus; 2nd ed. Moscow: OGI publ., Fond Matematicheskiye etyudy” publ.

26. Aleshkevich, S. S (2021). Classification and peculiarities of semantic changes. In: Modern Pedagogical Education, 4, 231–235 (in Russ.).

27. Severskaya, O. I. & Vysotskaya, I. V. (2019). ИMozhno, pozhaluysta...” as a speech formula for the newest Russian politeness”. In: Siberian Journal of Philology, 3, 225–233. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/68/20.