UDC

[81'22+81'42]:81'27

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V157

Authors

San’ya I. Madzhaeva
Astrakhan State Medical University; ul. Bakinskaya 121, Astrakhan, 414000, Russian Federation; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8478-9616 e-mail: sanya-madzhaeva@yandex.ru

Evgeniya Yu. Kislyakova
Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University; prosp. im. V.I. Lenina 27, Volgograd, 400005, Russian Federation; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6425-9829 e-mail: kisjen@rambler.ru

Abstract

This article studies the linguistic worldview of healthy and sick people and its reflection in various spheres of communication. Examples of verbalization of important components of human health and disease are analysed here. For materials, the authors turned to the results of surveys, mass media texts, and TV projects. Based on the data studied, the following conditions for the development of healthy people’s linguistic worldview were singled out: positive thinking; linguistic ecological monitoring of language use and appropriate regulations in the state linguistic policy; strengthening the communicative component in the educational programmes in schools and universities. For the sick, these conditions are: manipulating a person’s communicative consciousness by means of language-game in TV projects, using negatively coloured vocabulary/information in mass media texts, and bastardizing the language. The authors established that the linguistic worldview of a healthy/sick person directly depends on his or her linguistic consciousness, which is formed under the influence of several factors, including the language, which plays a major role in creating cognitive and verbal structures of social consciousness. Further, it is noted that any society is prone to being divided into the healthy and the sick by the criterion of otherness, highlighting significant differences in their communicative behaviour and language use, which is reflected in the linguistic worldview that can be presented in the form of a semantic field with a nuclear and a peripheral zone. These zones represent a healthy (nucleus) and a sick (periphery) society. At the verbal level, various spheres of a healthy/sick person’s life, perceived positively or negatively, are mirrored in the person’s worldview. In this respect, a healthy society is thought of as more positive and ecological in terms of communication, while a sick society is seen as more negative and non-ecological. To prevent risks of failed communication, it is essential to create conditions for ecological communicative interaction.

For citation: Madzhaeva S.I., Kislyakova E.Yu. Linguistic Worldview in the Communicative Space of the Healthy and the Sick. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2022, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 80–89. DOI: 10.37482/2687-1505-V157

Keywords

linguistic worldview, healthy/sick, society, speech, Other-image, communicative category of otherness, communicative space

References

1. Mazur I.I., Chumakov A.N. (eds.). Globalistika: Mezhdunarodnyy mezhdistsiplinarnyy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Global Studies: An International Interdisciplinary Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow, 2006. 1160 p.
2. Arkhipova N.G. Eksplikatsiya kontseptov “Zdorov’e” – “Bolezn’” v sovremennom yazykovom soznanii [Explication of the Concepts ”Health” – ”Disease” in Modern Linguistic Consciousness]. Slovo: Fol’klornodialekticheskiy al’manakh [The Word: A Folklore and Dialect Miscellany]. Iss. 3. Blagoveshchensk, 2005, pp. 15–28. Available at: https://slovo.amursu.ru/volumes/03/03_01/03_01_02/ (accessed 2 December 2021).
3. Ionova S.V. Sotsial’nye varianty yazyka v aspekte lingvisticheskoy diagnostiki [Social Variation in Language n the Aspect of Linguistic Diagnostics]. Sotsial’nye varianty yazyka – XI [Social Variation in Language]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2021, pp. 9–17.
4. Troyan S.V. Kontseptual’naya oppozitsiya bol’noy – zdorovyy kak vektornyy skalyarno-antonimicheskiy kompleks (v leksiko - frazeologicheskom fonde russkogo yazyka i v tekstakh regional’nykh SMI) [Conceptual Opposition Sick – Healthy as a Scalar-Antonymic Vector Complex (in the Vocabulary and Phraseology of the Russian Language and in the Texts of Regional Media): Diss.]. Omsk, 2017. 183 p.
5. Shakhovskiy V.I. Modus ekologichnosti v emotsional’noy kommunikatsii [Ecology Modus in Emotional Communication]. Shakhovskiy V.I. (ed.). Emotivnaya lingvoekologiya v sovremennom kommunikativnom prostranstve [Emotive Linguistic Ecology in the Modern Communicative Space]. Volgograd, 2013, pp. 53–61.
6. Karasik V.I. Yazykovoy krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse]. Volgograd, 2002. 477 p.
7. Popova Z.D., Sternin I.A. Kognitivnaya lingvistika [Cognitive Linguistics]. Moscow, 2007. 314 p.
8. Uryson E.V. Problemy issledovaniya yazykovoy kartiny mira: Analogiya v semantike [Problems of Linguistic Worldview Study: Analogy in Semantics]. Moscow, 2003. 224 p.
9. Ufimtseva N.V., Tarasov E.F. Problemy izucheniya yazykovogo soznaniya [Some Problems of Language Consciousness Study]. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 2009, no. 10, pp. 22–29.
10. Yakovlev A.A., Mankhirova V.V. Elementy obydennoy kartiny mira v yazykovom soznanii studenta po dannym assotsiativnogo eksperimenta [Elements of Everyday Worldview in the Student’s Language Consciousness: An Associative Study]. Ekologiya yazyka i kommunikativnaya praktika, 2017, no. 1, pp. 38–56.
11. Budaev E.V. Semantika i pragmatika politicheskoy metafory kak ob”ekt lingvokul’turologicheskogo issledovaniya [Semantics and Pragmatics of Political Metaphor as an Object of Linguoculturological Research]. Russkiy yazyk kak sredstvo mezhkul’turnoy kommunikatsii i konsolidatsii sovremennogo obshchestva [Russian Language as a Means of Intercultural Communication and Consolidation of Modern Society]. Orenburg, 2007, pp. 54–64.
12. Madzhaeva S.I. Perspektivy razvitiya terminologii (istoriya terminologii kak argumentativnyy resurs) [Prospects for the Development of Terminology (the History of Terminology as an Argumentative Resource)]. Argumentativnaya ritorika v praktike politicheskogo, delovogo i administrativno-pravovogo obshcheniya [Argumentative Rhetoric in the Practice of Political, Business and Administrative-Legal Communication]. Volgograd, 2010, pp. 193–199.
13. Golovanova E.I., Madzhaeva S.I. O slovare epokhi pandemii koronavirusa [On the Vocabulary of the Coronavirus Pandemic Epoch]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2020, no. 7. Filologicheskie nauki, no. 121, pp. 48–55. DOI: 10.47475/1994-2796-2020-10707
14. Solganik G.Ya. Sovremennaya yazykovaya situatsiya i tendentsii razvitiya russkogo literaturnogo yazyka [Modern Linguistic Situation and Trends in Development of Russian Standard Language]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 10: Zhurnalistika, 2010, no. 5, pp. 122–134.
15. Kislyakova E.Yu. Detskaya teleperedacha kak “lingvoekologicheskaya diversiya” [Children’s TV Show as “Linguocultural Sabotage”]. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2019, no. 4, pp. 247–252.
16. Kislyakova E.Yu. Ino-obraz v strukture yazykovoy lichnosti kak problema kommunikativistiki [Other-Image in the Structure of Linguistic Personality as a Problem of Communication]. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2017, no. 2, pp. 115–121.
17. Dovlatov S. Inostranka [A Foreign Woman]. 2018. Available at: http://lib.ru/DOWLATOW/inostranka.txt (accessed: 13 February 2010).