Лингвистика и аксиология. Этносемиометрия ценностных смыслов
In this article the types and methods of teaching are reviewed with respect to psychological characteristics of a potential student.
This article addresses a subject that can in the broadest sense be stated as interplay of language and ideology in process of instantiating historical knowledge in texts of political significance. It is presumed that historical representations are not static; they are flexible and more than prone to distortion when values come into play. A clash of different political perspectives is a clash of different historical descriptions. And in this clash a power-wielding social agent has the power to reinterpret the history that will fit their political narrative with other interpretations outlawed and rendered unhistorical. The aim is to discuss how history is recontextualized in national political discourse in the framework of biased representation of historical f acts and to see how national historical discourse is reinstantiated vis-а-vis a newly acquired national identity. The evidence for this contention is provided through linguistic analysis of a chunk of texts produced by those claiming to be professional historians. An example of such discourse would be texts by Ukrainian historians writing on Great Patriotic War/World War II. Second, texts of public figures, state leaders among them, instantiating post-Soviet geopolitical situation in the Caucasus, in particular, tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh were looked into. Linguistic analysis is neither meant to substitute historical analysis, nor claims that all historical permutations are of discursive nature solely. Instead, we see the role of discourse analysis in placing a broader question: To what extent that which has really happened is displaced by its recontextualization in discourse, i.e. by its description?
By the example of the lexico-semantic group 'Stock market goods, their lists, properties, stock exchange documents and rules' the author shows the origin of traders' slang words and expressions and the structural, derivational and lexicological aspects of stock-market participants' lexis system relations.
The form whose main function is to express indirect commands, called the third person Imperative, Jussive or Exhortative, when compared to the prototypical (second person) Imperative, shows semantic and formal similarities and distinctions at the same time. The study describes formal and functional patterns of Jussive and places this category within the typology of the related categories, such as Imperative and Optative, based on data from six East Caucasian languages (Archi, Agul, Akhvakh, Chechen, Icari and Kumyk). Five formal patterns of Jussive are attested in these languages, including a specialized form, constructions derived from want, from tell him to do and from make him do and the Optative. Jussive forms may express such meanings as third person command, indirect causation, permission, indifference towards the accomplishment of an action and an assumption. While the Jussive is crucially different from the second person Imperative in that it introduces a third participant, this article shows that it is the addressee, not a third person, who is the central participant of a Jussive situation from both formal and functional points of view.