Mediated metadiscourse: Print media on anglicisms in post-Soviet Russian
Strenge, Gesine
Angol nyelvű Tudományos PhD (Disszertáció)
Megjelent: University of Edinburgh, 307 p. 2012
Azonosítók
MTMT: 31178697
This study examines attitudes towards anglicisms in Russian expressed in print media
articles. Accelerated linguistic borrowing from English, a particularly visible aspect
of the momentous language changes after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, has engendered
a range of reactions. Print media articles spanning two decades and several central
outlets are analysed to show how arguments for or against use of anglicisms are constructed,
what language ideologies these arguments serve, and whether mediated language attitudes
changed during the post-Soviet era. A summary of the history of Russian linguistic
borrowing and language attitudes from the Middle Ages to the present day shows that
periods of national consolidation provoked demands for the restriction of borrowing.
Then, a survey of theories on language ideologies demonstrates that they function
through the construction of commonsense argumentation in metadiscourse (talk about
talk). This argumentation draws on accepted common knowledge in the Russian linguistic
culture. Using critical discourse analytic tools, namely analysis of metaphor scenarios
and of argumentation, I examine argumentative strategies in the mediated language
debates. Particularly, the critical analysis reveals what strategies render dominant
standpoints on anglicisms self-evident and logical to the audience. The results show
that the media reaction to anglicisms dramatises language change in discourses of
threat, justified by assumed commonsense rational knowledge. Whilst there are few
reactions in the 1990s, debates on language intensified in the 2000s after Putin’s
policies of state reinforcement came into effect, peaking around times of official
language policy measures. Anglicisms and their users are subordinated, cast out as
the Other, not belonging to the in-group of sensible speakers. This threat is defused
via ridicule and claiming of the moral high ground. This commonsense argumentation
ultimately supports notions of Russian as a static, sacred component of Russian nation
building, and of speakers as passive. Close textual analysis shows that even articles
claiming to support language change and the use of anglicisms use argumentation strategies
of negativisation. Overall, a consensus on the character and role of the Russian language
exists between all perspectives, emphasising the importance of rules and assigning
speakers a passive role throughout.