Использование архаизмов, неологизмов, историзмов в политическом лексиконе

Аннотация

Ключевые слова: В данной статье представлен анализ семантической стратегия, классификации политической лексики. Авторы статьи политический, исследуют различные аспекты и подходы к категоризации смысл, терминов, используемых в политическом дискурсе. семантика, архаизмы, неологизмы, историзмы. Political discourse can include formal discussions or informal discourse discussions about politics among listeners and family members (Liebes and Ribak, 1991). Political speech is essentially an expression of the whole complex of relations between an individual and society, and therefore this phenomenon is essentially functionally aimed at forming a certain part of the worldview or world image among the receivers. Using political discourse as a cornerstone, it is possible to understand how cultural values are modeled in different language communities, how social order is promoted, and which elements of the linguistic picture of the world remain outside the speakers' conscious discourse strategies. Each language forms a conceptual image of the world that is unique to its society. A political text contains extralinguistic information (a world image) and symbolic information (a world image represented by a symbol, or a denomination). Political speech not only has a meaning related to reality but also has an important "connection" subjectively associated with a certain group or groups of people. Different subjects of communication appear in speech in different ways: communicative forms create their content [1,50]. The analysis of important data of political speech is a communicative-nominative analysis: who communicates and how he communicates. Political discourse is presented in faces. The face merges with the text, but at the same time it is the text itself. Mixing this "layer" or content creates new content. As a result, the author concludes that the same text spoken by different people "separates" into different texts: they are decoded, structured, classified, and ordered differently by the audience. They provide a different picture of social interaction [1, 51]. According to I.F. Ukhvanova- Shmygova, semantic-basic research of political speech can provide important material about modern speech in general, and about political speech in particular. At this stage of society's development, it is necessary to determine the characteristics of political speech, as well as to determine the historical and national-specific features of political speech, and the continuity or discontinuity of certain styles, types, and forms. [1, 51] A political text is a product of the conflict of different interests and strategies, resulting in ideas, voluntary actions, and discourses of political subjects. [1.70]. A political text is verbalized political activity in all its forms: both signified/symbolic (normative and accumulative activities) and unsigned (performative texts). This concept covers the subject scope and style features of political activity carried out in and through language. Political discourse is a set of political discourses of society: power discourse, counter-discourse, and public rhetoric that strengthens or destabilizes the existing system of social relations [2,35]. The modern study of the speeches of political leaders is expressed in two ways: 1. Speech analysis; 2. Semiotic analysis. 443 Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics Special Issue – 1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701 Discourse analysis (the broadest research paradigm) and semiotic analysis (a narrower approach, because it does not take into account the socio-historical conditions that are the object of analysis, performs tasks, but focuses only on the symbolic nature of speech) [2,164]. According to Sheygal E.I., the most characteristic of all types of communicative actions for "political" speech is the deliberate action of "persuasion" manifested in various ethnic-specific methods. These ethno-cultural styles are created as a result of a complex interaction of two types of stereotypes: linguistic related to the semantic advantages of the language and related to behavioral norms and value criteria established in society. Persuasion is effective if it is implemented based on principles that reflect established behaviors and attitudes in the community [2, 33]. Therefore, when interpreting political speech as a whole, one should not be limited to purely linguistic moments, otherwise, the essence and purpose of political speech will be overlooked. Understanding political discourse involves knowing the background, the expectations of the author and the audience, the hidden intentions, the plot patterns, and the favorite logical transitions that exist in a given period. Political speech forms an important part of our communication and involves high-level arguments to defend an opinion, justify or refute an opinion, or gain the approval of an audience. Political speech often uses lexical an