Prospects for Survival of Covid Neologisms in Modern English
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2021-11-50-62
Abstract
The lexical neologisms of the modern English language, which appeared in the period 2020—2021, are investigated. The units that have appeared under the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic and represent the modern content of the linguistic concept PANDEMIC in English in terms of possible reference of the semantics of the language with the ethnic cultural codes of modern carriers of this linguoculture are analyzed separately. The results of the analysis, which make it possible to predict the transition of individual neologisms from the elements of speech to the composition of the language are presented. The linguistic perspectives of the functioning of neologisms that appeared during the period from the beginning of the pandemic to the present moment, as well as the prospects for the functioning of separately taken derivational components such as pan-, cov-, demic, corona- are considered. The characteristic features of the neologisms of the 2020 and 2021 pandemic are analyzed separately in order to identify development trends and then predict the possibility of their survival in modern English. The selected neological units are examined for compliance with the fudge factor developed by the American neologue A. Metcalfe. This classification is complemented by the parameters developed by domestic researchers in the field of neology. Conclusions are made about potentially different prospects for the survival of neologisms in terms of form and content.
About the Authors
N. A. Voskresenskaya
National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia A. Voskresenskaya, PhD in Philology Head of the Department of Foreign Linguistics
Nizhny Novgorod
O. O. Gulik
National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oksana O. Gulik, PhD in Philology Senior Lecturer Institute of Philology and Journalism Department of Foreign Linguistics
Nizhny Novgorod
References
1. Aliaskarova, G. F. (2007). Comparative analysis of neologisms in modern Russian and German languages. Bulletin of SSTU, 4 (16): 226—231. (In Russ.).
2. Al-Salman, S., Haider, Ahmad S. (2021). COVID-19 trending neologisms and word formation processes in English. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1): 24—42. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-24-42.
3. Arnold, I. V. (2012). Lexicology of the modern English language. Moscow: FLINT; Nauka. 376 p. ISBN 978-5-9765-1041-8. (In Russ.).
4. Chudinov, A. P. (2012). Discursive characteristics of political communication. Political Linguistics, 2 (40): 53—59. (In Russ.).
5. Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language a dictionary of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 524 р.
6. Crystal, D. Cambridge Reflections-COVID-19: Vocabulary. Cambridgeblog. Available at: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2020/05/covocabulary/ (accessed 05.06.2021).
7. Herberg, D. (2004). Steffens D unter Mitarbeit von Elke Tellenbach, Doris Al-Wadi. Neuer Wortschatz. Neologismen der 90er Jahre im Deutschen, XXXVII. Berlin / NewYork: Walter de Gruyter. 393 s. ISBN 311017751X. (In Germ.).
8. Karasik, V. I. (2020). Epidemic in the mirror of media discourse: facts, assessments, positions. Political Linguistics, 2 (80): 25—34. DOI: 10.26170/pl20-02-02. (In Russ.).
9. Kasatkin, L. L. (1991). A brief guide to the modern Russian language. Moscow: Higher School. 399 p. ISBN 5-06-001579-3. (In Russ.).
10. Koltsova, E. A. (2017). Neologisms of the English language of the XXI century. Bulletin of the RUDN. Series: Theory of Language. Semiotics. Semantics, 8 (3): 604—613. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2017-8-3-604-613. (In Russ.).
11. Kuznetsova, N. V. (2014). On the issue of linguistic forecasting and linguistic perspectives of new vocabulary in modern English. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N. I. Lobachevsky, 2 (2): 378—382. (In Russ.).
12. Kuznetsova, N. V., Vakhromova, E. N. (2009). To the question of linguistic perspectives of neologisms of the computer sphere. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N I. Lobachevsky, 6 (2): 270—275. (In Russ.).
13. Louw, B., Мilojkovic, М. (2016). Corpus Stylistics as Contextual Prosodic Theory and Subtext. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publ. 419 p. DOI: 10.1075/lal.23.
14. Metcalf, A. (2002). Predicting New Words: The Secrets of Their Success. Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. 207 p.
15. Nordquist, R. The Definition of Borrowing Language. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-borrowing-language-1689176 (accessed 05.06.2021).
16. Pokrovsky, M. M. (1959). Selected works on linguistics. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 381 p. (In Russ.).
17. Radbil, T. B. (2020). “Self-isolation” as the newest Russian cultural concept: cognitive-discursive aspect. Communicative research, 7 (4): 759—774. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2020.7(4).759-774. (In Russ.).
18. Radbil, T. B., Ratsiburgskaya, L. V. (2017). Word-formation innovations based on borrowed elements in the modern Russian language: linguoculturological aspect. The world of the Russian word, 2: 33—39. (In Russ.).
19. Ro, C. From ‘covidiots’ to ‘quarantine and chill’, the pandemic has led to many terms that help people laugh and commiserate. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200522-why-weve-created-new-language-for-coronavirus (accessed 05.06.2021).
20. Simpson, J. (2007). Neologism: The long view. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, 28 (1): 146—148. DOI: 10.1353/dic.2007.0021.
21. Telia, V. N. (1996). Russian phraseology: semantic, pragmatic and linguoculturological aspects: monograph. Moscow: School “Languages of Russian culture”. 288 p. ISBN 5-88766-047-3. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Voskresenskaya N.A., Gulik O.O. Prospects for Survival of Covid Neologisms in Modern English. Nauchnyi dialog. 2021;(11):50-62. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2021-11-50-62
Views:
851
Email this article 