Human Nominations in Microcontext
Main Article Content
Abstract
Human nominations are an essential linguistic tool for reflecting social roles, cultural values, and individual identity. Their semantic and stylistic variability plays a pivotal role in discourse. While numerous studies have examined nominations at the macrocontextual level, little attention has been paid to their behavior within microcontexts—short text fragments where nominations are pragmatically loaded and stylistically nuanced. There is limited understanding of how human nominations function in these microcontexts across various discourse genres, such as fiction, journalism, and internet communication. This study aims to identify, classify, and interpret human nominations within microcontexts in Russian-language discourse, analyzing their semantic, stylistic, and cultural dimensions. The analysis of a 150,000-word corpus revealed that nominations differ significantly across genres. Fiction favors metaphorical and culturally charged nominations, journalism emphasizes ideologically laden terms, while internet discourse is rich in expressive and ironic units. Key functions of nominations include referential, evaluative, stylistic, rhetorical, and cultural coding roles. Unlike traditional lexicographic approaches, this research examines nominations as pragmatic elements within their immediate linguistic environment, highlighting their interpretive elasticity and contextual sensitivity. These findings enhance our understanding of semantic and stylistic variability in discourse and can be applied in teaching stylistics, lexicology, and discourse analysis. They also offer insight into identity construction, language pragmatics, and media linguistics across various communicative settings.
Article Details
Issue
Section
How to Cite
References
[1] R. Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
[2] W. B. Gudykunst, Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003.
[3] D. Hymes, Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
[4] F. Boas, Handbook of American Indian Languages. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1911.
[5] C. Kramsch, Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
[6] T. A. Zhukova, Language creativity in Internet discourse: Slang, memes, and identity. Saint Petersburg: Polytechnic University Press, 2022.
[7] E. Sapir, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921.
[8] A. Duranti, Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[9] V. V. Katermina, Linguocultural potential of anthropocentric nominations in the Russian and English languages. Krasnodar: Kuban State University Publishing, 2015.
[10] V. A. Maslova, Linguocultural studies. Moscow: Academia, 2001.
[11] E. V. Dzyuba и S. A. Eryomina, National and cultural specifics of human nominations in modern discourse. Moscow: URSS, 2016.
[12] I. B. Shmeleva, Semantics and evaluation in modern Russian. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004.
[13] J. K. Hall, Teaching and researching language and culture. London: Pearson Education, 2005.
[14] B. A. Serebrennikov, The role of the human factor in language: Language and thinking. Moscow: Nauka, 1990.
[15] A. Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.