Cognitive-Semantic Mechanisms of Poverty Euphemization in Russian and Uzbek Media Discourse
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-183-212
Abstract
This article focuses on identifying and describing the cognitive-semantic mechanisms of euphemization and the frame models representing poverty. The study is based on a bilingual corpus of 800 media texts (420 in Russian and 380 in Uzbek) from central and regional media outlets, which yielded 63 euphemistic nominations. Cognitive-semantic annotation was conducted according to B. Warren's taxonomy (metaphor, metonymy, litotes, abstraction, generalization), along with frame-semantic modeling as proposed by C. Fillmore, enabling the identification of dominant frames within each subcorpus. The findings indicate that the Russian discourse is predominantly characterized by the frames of “temporary hardship” and “threshold/boundary,” which are realized through litotic and figurative forms (e.g., nebogatyy “not wealthy,” v trudnom material'nom polozhenii “in a difficult material situation,” za chertoy bednosti “below the poverty line”). Conversely, the Uzbek discourse is shaped by the frame of “institutional accounting,” represented through metonymic designations based on registries (e.g., temir daftar (iron notebook), ayollar daftari (women's notebook), mechr daftari (notebook of mercy)) and standardized terms (e.g., kam taminlangan (low-income), echtiyodzhmand (needy), kiyin moliyaviy vaziyatda (in a difficult financial situation)). It is demonstrated that both linguistic communities avoid direct lexemes for poverty such as Russ. bednyy / Uzb. kambagal (indigent), softening negativity through quantitative or situational descriptions. The study establishes that universal cognitive operations underlie common euphemization mechanisms, while their specific realizations are determined by the sociopolitical context and genre norms of national media discourses.
About the Authors
T. E. Alimov
Ferghana State University
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Timur E. Alimov - lecturer, Department of Russian Philology
Ferghana
R. A. Safina
Kazan Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Rimma A. Safina - PhD in Philology, Associate Professor
Kazan
References
1. Akhmanova, O. S. (2005). Dictionary of linguistic terms. Moscow: KomKniga Publ. 576 p. ISBN 5-354-00600-7. (In Russ.).
2. Akopova, A. S. (2023). Euphemism construction in English: thematic classification and statistical analysis. Issues of Applied Linguistics, 50: 28—51. DOI: 10.25076/vpl.50.02.
3. Alexandrova, O. V., Sibul, V. V. (2024). Euphemisms in economic discourse and their potential in manipulating readers' opinions: a functional aspect. Questions of applied linguistics, 56: 7—34. DOI:10.25076/vpl.56.01. (In Russ.).
4. Alimov, T. E., Davlatova, G. N., Sultanova, K. R. (2024). Structural organization of the euphemistic text of the Uzbek language on the example of the nominative field “O‘lmok” (“to die”). RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 15 (4): 1128—1147. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2024-15-4-1128-1147.
5. Allan, K., Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism & dysphemism: language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. XII, 263 p. ISBN 0-19-506622-7.
6. Antipova, A. S. (2021). Semantic shift in conflict terminology in contemporary Russian socio-cultural media discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 5 (2): 73—89. DOI: 10.22363/2521-442X-2021-5-2-73-89.
7. Arapova, N. S. (1997). Euphemisms. Moscow: Bolshaya Ros. encyclopedia. 703 p. (In Russ.).
8. Chovanec, J. (2019). Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space: The case of blue-on-blue. Lingua, 225: 50-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2019.04.001.
9. Danilina, E. A., Kizyan, E. E., Maksimova, D. S. (2019). Euphemisms in advertising discourse: putting on a positive face and maintaining speech etiquette. Training, Language and Culture, 3 (1): 8—22. DOI: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.1.1.
10. Fayziyeva, N. N. (2023). Siyosiy diskurs evfemizmlarining kommunikativ-pragmatik xususiyatlari (ingliz va o‘zbek tillari materiallari asosida). PhD Diss. Toshkent. 178 b. (In Uzbek.).
11. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin Publ. 111—137.
12. Gribanova, T. I. (2019). Hedging in different types of discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 3 (2): 85—99. DOI: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.2.6.
13. Kovshova, M. L. (2007). Semantics and pragmatics of euphemisms: a short thematic dictionary of modern Russian euphemisms. Moscow: Gnosis. 318 p. ISBN 978-5-94244015-2. (In Russ.).
14. Krysin, L. P. (1994). Euphemisms in modern Russian speech. Russian Studies, 1—2: 28—49. (In Russ.).
15. Lakoff, G. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 256 p. ISBN 9780-226-46801-3.
16. Logvina, S. A. (2020). Features of the prosodic organization of some conceptual elements of euphemism. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics, 11 (4): 716—732. DOI: 10.22363/23132299-2020-11-4-716-732. (In Russ.).
17. Malyuga, E. N., Petrosyan, G. O. (2024). Pragmatic presupposition in the headlines of English-language business media as an element of manipulative rhetoric. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology, 91: 104—130. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/91/6. (In Russ.).
18. Malyuga, E. N., Tomalin, B. (2024). Euphemisms in South African English economic discourse: Socio-cultural aspects. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 28 (3): 512—534. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-39076.
19. Mironina, A. Y., Porchescu, G. V. (2023). Euphemism as a means of implementing a strategy of avoiding the truth in political media discourse. Scientific result. Questions of theoretical and applied linguistics, 9 (2): 4—18. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2023-9-20-1. (In Russ.).
20. Rustamova, D. (2018). Metaphorical euphemization linguoculturologic va sociopragmatic aspect. PhD Diss. Fargona. 156 b. (In Russ.).
21. Safina, R. A. (2014). Political euphemia in functional, pragmatic and discursive aspects. Philology and Culture, 2 (36): 51—57. (In Russ.).
22. Shubina, E. L. (2023). Euphemistic nomination of poverty in German journalism. Philological sciences at MGIMO, 9 (2): 79—91. DOI: 10.24833/2410-2423-2023-2-35-79-91. (In Russ.).
23. Shubina, E. L., Shelekhova, R. S. (2025). Euphemization within Migration Discourse in German Journalism. Nauchnyi dialog, 14 (3): 156—176. https://doi.org/10.24224/22271295-2025-14-3-156-176 (In Russ.).
24. Solodilova, I. A., Sokolova, T. Y. (2017). Criteria for the identification of euphemisms. Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 11 (211): 73—78. (In Russ.).
25. Warren, B. (1992). What euphemisms tell us about the interpretation of words. Studia Linguistica, 46 (2): 128—172. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9582.1992.tb00833.x.
26. Zabotkina, V. I., Pozdnyakova, E. M. (2022). Cognitive mechanisms of manipulative euphemization. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 4: 55—64. DOI: 10.20916/1812-32282022-4-55-64. (In Russ.).
27. Zubkova, O. S., Logvina, S. A. (2024). Linguistic and cultural conditionality of the functioning of euphemism: an applied aspect. Questions of applied linguistics, 54: 31—62. DOI: 10.25076/vpl.54.02. (In Russ.).
28. Zvereva, M. I. (2023). Euphemisms in modern journalism as indicators of the state of the linguistic environment. PhD Diss. St. Petersburg. 164 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Alimov T.E., Safina R.A. Cognitive-Semantic Mechanisms of Poverty Euphemization in Russian and Uzbek Media Discourse. Nauchnyi dialog. 2025;14(7):183-212. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-7-183-212
Views:
17
Email this article 