National Question and Its Resolution: Semantics of Ethnic Disintegration and Integration in Russian History Textbooks of 20th-21st Centuries
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-7-9-27
Abstract
This article addresses the issue of verbalizing the semantics of ethnic disintegration (separation) and integration (unity) through terminological means. The study is based on an analysis of 40 combinations featuring the word “nation” and its derivatives, which are regularly employed in contemporary educational publications on Russian history from the 20th to the 21st century. The aim of this work is to describe the conceptual fields of ethnic disintegration or integration as represented by the terminological tools of educational historical discourse. Through a logical-semantic approach, the boundaries of the terminologies of disintegration / integration and their logical models are identified; the semantics of individual terminological units are described, including their axiological potentials. The structures of the conceptual fields represented by combinations with “nation” and its derivatives are delineated. The author concludes that the terms “national question” and “resolution of the national question” serve as foundational nominations within educational historical discourse, organizing the terminological systems of disintegration and integration. These terms are interpreted as opposing yet complementary fields that reflect the states of the nation and state in their opposition (political distancing of the nation from the state) or identification (political unity), encompassing a border zone filled with characteristics that facilitate the transition of the nation and state from one state to another.
Supporting agencies: The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-28-00854, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00854/
About the Author
L. M. Golikov
Vologda State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Leonid M. Golikov - PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of Organization and Support of Scientific Activities
Vologda
References
1. Dubrovskaya, T., Kharlamova, T. (2012). Representations of ideological and cultural values in modern Russian political discourse. Philologia Hispalensis, 26 (1—2): 107—127.
2. Dubrovskaya, T. V. (2022). Lexical markers of unity in Russian state program documents: words with morpheme -one-. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Language and literature, 19 (4): 740—759. DOI: 10.21638/spbu09.2022.406. (In Russ.).
3. Dubrovskaya, T. V. (2022). Markers of unity in legal and political-legal discourse. In: Faces of unity in language and discourse: monograph. Yekaterinburg: Azhur. 196—264. ISBN 978-5-91256-571-7. (In Russ.).
4. Dzhioeva, V. P., Tamerian, T. Y. (2017). Realization of unity concepts/judzinade in South Ossetian political discourse in the situation of Russian-Ossetian bilingualism. Political linguistics, 4 (64): 53—59. (In Russ.).
5. Leontieva, T. V. (ed.). (2022). Faces of unity in language and discourse: a monograph. Yekaterinburg: Azhur. 292 p. ISBN 978-5-91256-571-7. (In Russ.).
6. Gavrilova, M. V. (2010). The development of meaningful forms of the concept of “unity” in the Russian political discourse of the XX—XXI centuries. Political linguistics, 4 (34): 13—18. (In Russ.).
7. Golikov, L. M. (2023). Multinational People of Russian Federation (Russian Nation): Discursive Representation of a Political Subject. Nauchnyi dialog, 12 (6): 9—27. https:// doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-6-9-27 (In Russ.).
8. Gromyko, S. A. (2023). Speech Representations of Unity in Early 20th Century Russian Parliamentary Discourse: A Study of Lexemes ‘Edinstvo’ [Unity] and ‘Edinenie’ [Unification]. Nauchnyi dialog, 12 (5): 39—54. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295- 2023-12-5-39-54. (In Russ.).
9. Karasik, V. I. (1998). On the categories of discourse. In: Linguistic personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects. Volgograd; Saratov: Peremena. 185—197. (In Russ.).
10. Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 163 p. Kulikova, I. S. (2016). On the issue of the terminological status of the phrase “basic term”. Scientific Bulletin of the Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2 (21): 20—32. (In Russ.).
11. Nekhorosheva, A. M. (2012). Mechanisms of formation of the cognitive matrix “friend — foe” in German political discourse (on the example of speeches by Angela Merkel). Political linguistics, 2 (40): 140—144. (In Russ.).
12. Political, legal and mass media discourse in the aspect of constructing interethnic relations of the Russian Federation: monograph. (2018). Moscow: FLINT. 248 p. ISBN 978- 5-9765-3497-1. (In Russ.).
13. Shchetinina, A. V., Semekhina, A. S. (2021). Linguistic representation of the idea of national unity in media discourse. Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 1 (213): 18—27. DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2021-1-18-27. (In Russ.).
14. Sokolov, D. V. (2014). On the problem of the genesis of the concept “nationalism”. Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 3 (144): 138—144. (In Russ.).
15. Vasiliev, A. D. (2012). Word games: modern national riddles. Political linguistics, 1 (39): 1—17. (In Russ.).
16. Vorontsova, T. A. (2017). Functioning of the concepts of nation and nationality in the Russian linguistic consciousness. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 12 (408): 39—45. (In Russ.).
17. Zhdanova, L.A. (2000). The people and the nation: the ratio of concepts and concepts. In: Functional and semantic characteristics of the text, utterances, words. Questions of Russian linguistics. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. 162—172. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Golikov L.M. National Question and Its Resolution: Semantics of Ethnic Disintegration and Integration in Russian History Textbooks of 20th-21st Centuries. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(7):9-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-7-9-27
Views:
148
Email this article 