Reflexive Possibilities of a Language During the Selection of the Word of the Year

“Word of the Year” as a linguistic and sociological research is carried out in many countries of the world and has been very popular for many years, moreover, it attracts more and more attention every year. This partly explains the relevance of this study. The “Word of the Year” campaign is usually attended by professional philologists, who can involve the general public in the discussion, but the final choice is made by experts. Yet, the average native speaker gets a chance to evaluate the result. The aim of the article is to describe the reflexive possibilities of “Words of the Year” as seen by a Russian-speaking observer, who carries out linguistic reflection. The material for analysis includes lists of “Words of the Year” for different years in different countries; sources of material are Internet publications, designed for a wide range of Russian-speaking readers; the main methods encompass observation, description, component and conceptual analysis. The article formulates the definition of “Word of the Year” as a linguistic unit that due to its significance and frequency of use, has become a nominal linguistic marker of one calendar year. “Word of the Year” helps to trace current social sentiments, problematic topics and topical issues of concern to the social majority. “Word of the Year” allows us to summarize a brief verbal summary of the period and consolidate these generalisations for the next generations. The analysis of the material led to conclusions that the reflexive possibilities of the “Word of the Year” can comprise frequency as an indicator of a surge of attention to the word; selection of a language unit from a number of words that are to some extent related to the current and significant “key situation”; and competition between several lists of “Words of the Year” compiled by different expert groups, whose existence allows a native speaker, first, to compare different approaches to the choice made and to juxtapose them to their own linguistic instinct.

1. Vepreva I. T. Meta language reflection in functional and typological coverage: based on the material of reflexive utterances 1991–2002. Doctoral thesis. Ekaterinburg; 2003. 42 р. (In Russ.).

2. Bulygina T. V., Shmelev A. D. Man about Language (metalanguage reflection in non-linguistic texts). Logicheskij analiz jazyka: Obraz cheloveka v kul’ture i jazyke. Moscow: Indrik; 1999:146–161. (In Russ.).

3. Generalova E. V. From ‘Violent Tenth’ to ‘Obese Zeros’: the Epithets to Denote the Ten-year Periods in the History of our Country. Russkaja rech’ = Russian Speech. 2019;(1):37–43. (In Russ.).

4. I Licjun’. “Words of the Year” as units of language and discourse (against the background of the Chinese language). Abstract of Thesis. Moscow; 2022. 28 р. (In Russ.).

5. Shmeleva T. V. Keywords of the current moment. Solleqium. 1993;(1):33–41. (In Russ.).

6. Speranskaja A. N. “Word of the year” and “key situation”: on the replenishment of the current lexicon. Kommunikativnye issledovanija = Communication Studies. 2021;8(1):102–114. (In Russ.).

7. Buryakovskaya V. A., Dmitrieva, O. A. Linguocultural characteristics of the “Word of the year”. Izvestija Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta = Proceedings of the Volgograd state pedagogical University. 2017;116(3):101–105. (In Russ.).

8. Nikolaeva E. V. “Words of the year” as linguistic and cultural concepts. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2017;76(10–1):154–157. (In Russ.).

9. Golev N. D. Peculiarities of modern metalinguistic consciousness reflected in discussions about language construction. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya = Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2008;4(3):5–17. (In Russ.).