The Associative Dictionary of Media Events in the Early XXI Century: a New Lexicographic Concept

The article introduces a new concept of the Associative Dictionary of Media Events of the Early XXI Century. The project continues the traditions of common lexicography. As a rule, common lexicography is part of a special problem field described by various antinomies, e.g. objective vs. subjective in the language, individual vs. collective, descriptive vs. prescriptive approaches to the lexical representation in dictionaries, etc. The new dictionary represents a snapshot of everyday media consciousness and thus belongs to descriptive lexicographic projects. The dictionary is based on an associative experiment that involved Russian and French speakers. While traditional associative dictionaries contain the most frequent vocabulary, this project represents the conceptual meanings of various media events that exist in the everyday collective consciousness. The new dictionary belongs to media linguistics, descriptive lexicography, and interpretive linguistics. The present article describes the technology of its compilation, substantiates its relevance and novelty, and offers a sample entry using the case of the COVID-19 pandemic and its representation in the Russian language. Each media event consisted of two associative nests: one was based on the reactions of respondents who were familiar with the stimulus, whereas the other demonstrated reactions of participants unfamiliar with the media event. The epidemic being global, such key lexemes as "covid" and "coronavirus" lost their agnonymity for Russian speakers, and the media event appeared to have a zero agnonymous associative nest. The paper also provides a linguistic commentary on the covid entry, which summed up all the reactions received during the associative experiment. The lexicographic project can be of interest to specialists in media, political, cognitive, and cultural linguistics.

media linguistics, media discourse, associative experiment, everyday lexicography, mundane consciousness

1. Golev N. D. Russian colloquial written speech and the reflection of its modern state in the ordinary metalanguage consciousness of virtual communication participants. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 2013, (5): 12–30. (In Russ.)

2. Krongauz M. A. Semantics, 2nd ed. Moscow: Academia, 2005, 350. (In Russ.)

3. Lebedeva N. B., Zyrianova E. G., Plaksina N. Yu., Tyukaeva N. I. Genres of natural writing: student graffiti, marginal pages of notebooks, private note. Moscow: KRASAND, 2011. 252. (In Russ.)

4. Suhoterina T. P., Nebolsina M. S. The everyday written communication within the discoursive aspect. Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya, 2015, (5): 407–409. (In Russ.)

5. Golev N. D., Shpilnaya N. N. Ordinary medical communication (types of discursive practices). Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012, (1): 128–137. (In Russ.)

6. Shpilnaya N. N. Thematic structure of everyday pedagogical speech discourse. Communication Studies (Russia), 2018, (4): 45–58. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2018.4.45-58

7. Golev N. D., Kim L. G. Common political Internet commentaries as a manifestation of variability of interpretation (oppositions "explicit – implicit", "manifested – expected"). Implicit and explicit strategies in Eastern European political discourse: Proc. Russian section Intern. conf. "Ain's misbehavin'? Implicit and explicit strategies in Eastern European political discourse", Ekaterinburg – Zurich, October 19–22, 2013. Ekaterinburg: IurGPU, 2014, 47–71. (In Russ.)

8. Kishina E. V. Lingvoconflictological aspect of ordinary political communication description. Communication Studies (Russia), 2014, (2): 32–39. (In Russ.)

9. Saveleva I. V. The strategies of political discourse perception by the authors of Internet comments. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2013, (2-2): 152–156. (In Russ.)

10. Shpilnaya N. N. Strategies and tactics of communicative behavior of linguistic persona in everyday political communication. Political Linguistics, 2017, (5): 222–228. (In Russ.)

11. Dobrosklonskaya T. G. Issues of studying media texts. Finding in the research of modern English media. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2005, 288. (In Russ.)

12. Dobrosklonskaya T. G. Medialinguistics: A Systematic Approach to Learning the Language of the Media: Modern English Media Speech. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2008, 263. (In Russ.)

13. Kondratyeva O. N., Valko O. V., Gerasimchuk D. M., Golev N. D., Dudareva Ya. A., Zheglo A. V., Ineshina S. V., Kuznetsov D. V., Makrushina Yu. A., Maksakova E. E., Melnik N. V., Novoklinova A. V., Saveleva I. V., Rabkina N. V., Frolova T. I. Kuzbass: complex cognitive-discursive modeling of the image of the region. Moscow: Pero, 2020, 308. (In Russ.)

14. Abdullina L. R., Ageeva A. V. Frame representation of the national features of news comments as an Internet-discourse genre. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Linguistics, 2017, 14(1): 21–26. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.14529/ling170104

15. Kameneva V. A. Internet commentary on Internet political and cultural English language articles: the communicative purpose. Political Linguistics, 2016, (1): 15–19. (In Russ.)

16. Koshel P. V. French online comment as a speech genre. Vestnik of Moscow state linguistic university, 2013, (10): 80–89. (In Russ.)

17. Ineshina S. V. Models of interpretation of the event in the discourse of the Russian press. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2018, (2): 176–182. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.21603/2078-8975-2018-2-176-182

18. Golev N. D. Descriptive and prescriptive lexicography. Ordinary metalanguage consciousness: ontological and epistemological aspects, ed. Golev N. D. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2010, pt. 3, 169–171. (In Russ.)

19. Barthes R. Selected works: Semiotics. Poetics. Moscow: Progress, 1989, 615. (In Russ.)

20. Frumkina R. M. Psycholinguistic methods of studying semantics. Psycholinguistic problems of semantics, eds. Leontiev A. A., Shakhnarovich A. M. Moscow: Nauka, 1983, 46–85. (In Russ.)

21. Debrenne M. A French dictionary of word associations. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 2018, (35): 150–167. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.30982/2077-5911-2018-35-1-150-166

22. Ufimtseva N. V., Cherkasova G. A., Karaulov Yu. N., Tarasov E. F. Slavic associative dictionary: Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, and Ukrainian. Moscow, MGLU, 2004, 800. (In Russ.)

23. Vitvinchuk V. V. Desing of media-event: specificity of social chronotope. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologya, 2013, (2): 104–110. (In Russ.)

24. Basalaeva M. Yu., Vorobyeva M. E., Golev N. D., Dudareva Ya. A., Zamilova A. V., Kim L. G., Kishina E. V., Kuznetsova T. Yu., Melnik N. V. Dictionary of everyday interpretations of Russian words. Lexicon of nature. Vol. 1. A–M: ABRIKOS – MURAVEY. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2012, 535. (In Russ.)

25. Dudareva Ya. A., Zamilova A. V., Satuchina T. Yu. Russian language naming dictionary (bionymy words as brand names). Kemerovo: KemGU, 2016, 304. (In Russ.)

26. Dictionary of common interpretations of political terms. Lexicographic experience: 50 stimulus words, ed. Golev N. D. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2019, 141. (In Russ.)

27. Kondratyeva O. N. The dictionary of political terms in the media as a new lexicographical product. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 2016, (6): 38–49. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17223/19986645/44/3

28. Dudareva Ya. A. Intercultural communication between Russia and China: naming dictionary. One belt – one way. Interaction linguistics: Proc. Intern. Sci. Conf., Ekaterinburg, October 16–21, 2017. Ekaterinburg: IurGPU, 2017, 56–58. (In Russ.)

29. Kurganova N. I. Association experiment as a method of studying the living word meaning. Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 2019, (3): 24–37. (In Russ.)