Clichéd Responses in Youth Communication: Semantics, Axiology, Pragmatics, and Sociocultural Functions
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2026-15-3-90-112
Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of formulaic response utterances in youth speech, conceptualized as propozeomas (e.g., Osuzhdayu [“I condemn it”], Ponyal, prinyal, obrabotal [“Got it, received, processed”], Znayu, umeyu, praktikuyu [“I know, I can, I practice”] etc.). These utterances are proposed as units of intermediate status between phraseological units with a predicative basis and free sentences. The study examines their structural and functional specificity, including the absence of imagery and their role in dialogue organization, among other features. It is established that these utterances function as speech clichés or ready-made verbal solutions, enabling instantaneous reactions in typical communicative situations and relieving speakers or writers from the cognitive effort required to formulate extended personal statements. Emphasis is placed on their role as a communicative tool that fills typical slots in dialogue, serving as metalinguistic markers with varying semantic specialization. It is noted that such constructions act as markers of cultural identity for the contemporary “digital” generation, reflecting shifts in communication styles and value orientations among young language users. The analysis demonstrates that the examined stable cliché-utterances from modern youth speech mark value fixations centered on self-presentation through personal experience, information-digital interaction, visual sensitivity, and ritualized normative-value distancing. It is further observed that the aggregate of these value slots constructs a psychographic profile of the younger generation.
About the Author
T. V. LeontyevaRussian Federation
Tatyana V. Leontyeva - Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Mass Communication Languages
WoS ResearcherID: F-6156-2016
ScopusAuthor ID: 56728772100
Yekaterinburg
References
1. Akopyan, D. V. (2025). Transformation of the institute of direct political appeal in the context of digitalization of the public sphere. Zakon i vlast’, 9: 52–56. (In Russ.).
2. Bazlutskaya, M. M., Sytnik, A. N., & Tsvetkova, N. A. (2024). Audience engagement as an indicator of digital diplomacy effectiveness. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, 17(4), 48–82. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2024-4-97-48-82. (In Russ.).
3. Baranov, A. N., Plungyan, V. A., & Rakhilina, E. V. (1993). A guide to discourse markers in the Russian language. Pomovsky i partnery. (In Russ.).
4. Bayakova, D. (2024). On the expression of intensifying semantics in the construction “ot slova sovsem”. In Russian language in the XXI century: research by young scholars: proceedings of the XI International Scientific Student Conference. Astana: L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Pp. 5–8. (In Russ.).
5. Belova, V. M. (2011). Discourse markers in montage-type memoirs: semantics, functions, pragmatics: PhD. Diss. Cherepovets. 187 p. (In Russ.).
6. Belousov, S. S. (2016). “Ot slova sovsem” as a grammatical construction. Uchenye zapiski Petrozavodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 7-1(160), 72–77. (In Russ.).
7. Blokh, M. Ya. (2004). Theoretical foundations of grammar. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. 239 p. ISBN 5-06-004215-4/ (In Russ.).
8. Bychkova, P. A. (2020). Discourse formulas of confirmation in a typological perspective. Jezikoslovni Zapiski, 27: 111–128. (In Russ.).
9. Chernyi, V.A., & Veber, V.V. (2021). What do social media popularity ratings say? Sotsiodygger, 2(5(10)): 18–29. (In Russ.).
10. Davies, W. (2023). The reaction economy. London Review of Books, 45(5). Available at: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n05/william-davies/the-reaction-economy.
11. Ioanesyan, E.R. (2022). Discursive Formulas Derived from Propositional Predicates. Nauchnyi dialog, 11(8): 24-39. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-8-24-3. (In Russ.).
12. Kiseleva, K., & Payar, D. (eds.). (1998). Discourse markers of the Russian language: experience of context-semantic description. Moscow: Metatekst. 446 p. ISBN 5-89672-005-X. (In Russ.).
13. Krongauz, M. A. (2013). Self-tutor in Olbanian. Moscow: AST. 416 p. ISBN 978-5-17- 077807-2. (In Russ.).
14. Kustova, G. I. (2012). On illocutionary phraseology. In Collection of articles in honor of the 80th anniversary of I.A. Mel’chuk. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury. Pp. 349– 366. (In Russ.).
15. Lokalina, Yu. S. (2022). The construction “ot slova sovsem” as a stable combination. Sovremennaya russkaya leksikologiya, leksikografiya i lingvogeografiya, 4: 104–111. (In Russ.).
16. Lokalina, Yu. S. (2024). Functioning of the stable model X ot slova Y in the modern Internet space. Komp’yuternaya lingvistika i vychislitel’nye ontologii, 7: 32–41. DOI: 10.17586/2541-9781-2024-7-32-41. (In Russ.).
17. Rakhilina, E. V., Bychkova, P. A., & Zhukova, S. Yu. (2021). Speech acts as a linguistic category: discourse formulas. Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 2: 7–27. DOI: 10.31857/0373-658X.2021.2.7-27
18. Severskaya, O. I., & Selezneva, L. V. (2021). Reframing idioms and paremias in coronavirus discourse. Slovo.ru: baltiyskiy aktsent, 12(1): 96–109. DOI: 10.5922/2225-5346-2021-1-7. (In Russ.).
19. Trebler, S.M. (2025). On the status of discourse constructions “ot slova sovsem”, “dvadtsat’ chetyre na sem’” in modern Russian. In Proceedings of the XIV Nurgaliev Readings: International collection of scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 85th anniversary of Academician Rymgali Nurgali. Astana: Master PO. Pp. 159–163. (In Russ.).
20. Sharonov, I.A. (2018). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of describing introductory words and communicatives. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 51: 58–68. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/51/6. (In Russ.).
21. Sholokhov, M.A. (2019). Linguocultural specificity of verbal internet memes. Aktual’nye problemy filologii, 18: 172–176. (In Russ.).
22. Voznesenskaya, M. M., & Severskaya, O. I. (2019). “Ni razu ot slova sovsem”: Intensifying semantics of slang agrammatisms. In V. N. Stepanov (Ed.), Russian grammar: active processes in language and speech: collection of scientific papers of the International Scientific Symposium. Yaroslavl: Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky. Pp. 470–480. (In Russ.).
23. Volkova, A. V., Nazarov, A. A., & Pryanikov, R. A. (2024). Method of feedback analysis in social networks: audience feedback index. In Proceedings of the XXVI International Baltic Communication Forum. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University of Telecommunications named after prof. M.A. Bonch-Bruevich. Pp. 87–91. (In Russ.).
24. Yunusov, A. (2025). Why condemn? The problem of justifying practices of imposing moral responsibility. Logos, 35(3(166)): 127–160. DOI: 0.17323/0869-5377-2025-3-127- 160. (In Russ.).
25. Zelenin, A. V. (2022). Syntactic anomaly: “ot slova sovsem”. Russkiy yazyk v shkole, 83(1), 67–77. DOI: 10.30515/0131-6141-2022-83-1-67-77. (In Russ.).
26. Zhukova, S. Yu., Orekhov, B. V., & Rakhilina, E. V. (2019). Discourse formulas of the Russian language: a diachronic approach. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka imeni V.V. Vinogradova, 21, 142–164. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Leontyeva T.V. Clichéd Responses in Youth Communication: Semantics, Axiology, Pragmatics, and Sociocultural Functions. Nauchnyi dialog. 2026;15(3):90-112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2026-15-3-90-112
JATS XML





















